Meadows v. Odom, CIV.A. 03-960-B-2.

• Citation: 360 F.Supp.2d 811
• Decision Date: 03 March 2005
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 03-960-B-2.,CIV.A. 03-960-B-2.
• Parties: Sandy MEADOWS, et al. v. Bob ODOM, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

360 F.Supp.2d 811

Sandy MEADOWS, et al. v. Bob ODOM, et al.

No. CIV.A. 03-960-B-2.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

March 3, 2005.

Clark Neily, William H. Mellor, Institute for Justice, Washington, DC, Scott D. Wilson, Scott D. Wilson, APLC, Baton Rouge, LA, Michael R. Fontham, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs.

David S. McFadden, C. James Gelpi, Clark A. Richard, Gelpi and Associates, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants.

RULING

POLOZOLA, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.¹ For the reasons which follow, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

I. Factual Background

The Court has previously set forth the factual background in an earlier opinion and will adopt these factual findings by reference herein.²

The issue the Court must determine on the pending motions is whether the right to pursue one's chosen occupation is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the Substantive Due Process Clause.³

II. Law & Analysis

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment should be granted if the record, taken as a whole, "together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."⁴ The Supreme Court has interpreted the plain language of Rule 56(c) to mandate "the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial."⁵ A party moving for summary judgment "must `demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,' but need not negate the elements of the nonmovant's case."⁶ If the moving party "fails to meet this initial burden, the motion must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response."⁷

If the moving party meets this burden, Rule 56(c) requires the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and show by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, or other admissible evidence that specific facts exist over which there is a genuine issue for trial.⁸ The nonmovant's burden may not be satisfied by conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, metaphysical doubt as to the facts, or a scintilla of evidence.⁹ Factual controversies are to be resolved in favor of the nonmovant, "but only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts."¹⁰ The Court will not, "in the absence of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts."¹¹ Unless there is sufficient evidence for a jury to return a verdict in the nonmovant's favor, there is no genuine issue for trial.¹²

In order to determine whether or not summary judgment should be granted, an examination of the substantive law is essential. Substantive law will identify which facts are material in that "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment."¹³

B. The right to pursue the "common occupations of life" is a protected liberty interest, subject to reasonable regulation.

The right to pursue the "common occupations of life" is a protected liberty interest, subject to reasonable limitations. In Blackburn v. City of Marshall,¹⁴ the Fifth Circuit stated that,

[W]here not affirmatively restricted by reasonable laws or regulations of general application, private individuals normally have the right to engage in private employment or any of the common occupations of life with or for those private persons who see fit to engage, patronize, or do business with them.¹⁵

In Payne v. Fontenot,¹⁶ this Court noted that, "[a]lthough the Fifth Circuit has not explicitly defined the contours of that right, it is clear that the state may require certain standards of qualifications before it permits a person to practice a given trade or profession."¹⁷ With regard to the reasonableness of regulating professions, this Court has held:

It is only required that any qualification have a rational connection with (1) the applicant's fitness or capacity to serve in that trade or profession and (2) an arguably legitimate state interest in regulating that trade or profession.¹⁸ If a state can and does choose to regulate a given occupation in a particular manner, it may also be required to provide notice and opportunity to be heard pursuant to the minimum requirements of procedural due process,¹⁹ and of course, it must not be defamatory in its application of the standards.²⁰

The Court now turns to discussion of the applicable jurisprudence and the facts of this case.

C. Applicable Jurisprudence

Plaintiffs argue that floristry is a harmless occupation which should not be licensed by the State of Louisiana. Defendants contend that in Williamson v. Lee Optical Of Oklahoma,²¹ the U.S. Supreme Court found that a state is not required to regulate all professions and occupations in order to regulate some professions and occupations. Nor do the professions and occupations have to be regulated in the same manner.

In Williamson, plaintiffs sought to have an Oklahoma law declared unconstitutional and enjoin state officials from enforcing the law which regulated optometrists or ophthalmologists. The district court found certain portions of three sections of the law at issue unconstitutional.²² The district court concluded that certain portions of the act violated the due process clause by arbitrarily interfering with the optician's right to do business.²³

The United States Supreme Court reversed the district court and found the law constitutional. The Supreme Court noted that, "[t]he Oklahoma law may exact a needless, wasteful requirement in many cases. But it is for the legislature, not the courts, to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the new requirement."²⁴ While the Supreme Court acknowledged that in some cases the optician could easily supply new frames or lenses without reference to an old prescription, the Court held that,

[I]n some cases the directions contained in the prescription are essential, if the glasses are to be fitted so as to correct the particular defects of vision or alleviate the eye condition. The legislature might have concluded that the frequency of occasions when a prescription is necessary was sufficient to justify this regulation of the fitting of eyeglasses. Likewise, when it is necessary to duplicate a lens, a written prescription may or may not be necessary. But the legislature might have concluded that one was needed often enough to require one in every case.²⁵

Thus, the Court found that, "the law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it."²⁶

The Court²⁷ further stated that, "[t]he day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought."²⁸

The district court in Williamson had also held that the regulation violated the Equal Protection Clause by subjecting opticians to this regulatory system and exempting all sellers of ready-to-wear glasses. In reversing the district court, the Supreme Court held:

The problem of legislative classification is a perennial one, admitting of no doctrinaire definition. Evils in the same field may be of different dimensions or proportions, requiring different remedies. Or so the legislature may think. Tigner v. State of Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 60 S.Ct. 879, 84 L.Ed. 1124. Or the reform may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind. Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 55 S.Ct. 570, 79 L.Ed. 1086. The legislature may select one phase of one field and apply a remedy there, neglecting the others. A.F. of L. v. American Sash Co., 335 U.S. 538, 69 S.Ct. 258, 93 L.Ed. 222. The prohibition of the Equal Protection Clause goes no further than the invidious discrimination. We cannot say that that point has been reached here. For all this record shows, the ready-to-wear branch of this business may not loom large in Oklahoma or may present problems of regulation distinct from the other branch.²⁹

Finally, the Supreme Court found that because "[g]eographical location may be an important consideration in a legislative program which aims to raise the treatment of human eye to a strictly professional level, we cannot say that the regulation has no rational relation to that objective and therefore is beyond constitutional bounds."³⁰

Marusic Liquors, Inc. v. Daley³¹ is also relevant to the Court's discussion of applicable jurisprudence. In Marusic, a liquor licensee brought a § 1983 action against city-related defendants, challenging that a statute that froze the transfer of liquor licenses to non-relatives on the grounds the statute violated Equal Protection and Due Process.³² The plaintiff sought to be relieved of the restrictions on the sale of his license and store.

Addressing the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held:

Not since the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1872), has it been seriously maintained that the fourteenth amendment curtails the states' power to restrict competition in business — if they choose, by establishing and limiting systems of occupational licensure. The Slaughter-House Cases, dispatch any argument...