Waters v. Stans

• Decision Date: 17 February 1972
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1987-71.
• Citation: 341 F. Supp. 441
• Parties: Lillian B. WATERS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Maurice H. STANS et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

341 F. Supp. 441

Lillian B. WATERS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Maurice H. STANS et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 1987-71.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

February 17, 1972.

David J. Berman, Roderic Boggs, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.

J. Michael McGarry, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GESELL, District Judge.

After administrative proceedings, plaintiffs, who are two black employees of the Bureau of Census, have been ordered suspended for five days. The suspension is being deferred pending resolution of the present controversy which is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs claim that they are being disciplined under an arbitrary, vague regulation and their rights under the First Amendment are being violated. Defendants support the regulation and contend that their action is reasonably necessary to protect the efficiency of the federal service.

The facts are not in dispute. During a lunch hour the plaintiffs, who were with others picketing in the lobby of the Census building at Suitland, Maryland, complaining against discriminatory discharges, entered the Census cafeteria which is open to the public and approached two white women supervisors who were there seated having lunch. They carried a two-foot-by-four-foot sign which read: "Pigs Off Census," and held it silently next to the women's table for several minutes. This incident attracted considerable attention. The supervisors involved were among those accused of allegedly discriminatory firings. They were unable to complete their meal, became upset, left the cafeteria and were unable to work the remainder of the day.

Suspension is proposed under a Department of Commerce regulation prohibiting "conduct which violates common decency or morality or use of improper or obscene language." Similar general clauses in federal employee regulations exist and have been upheld where they can be "adequately measured by common understanding and practice." Meehan v. Macy, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 217, 392 F.2d 822 (1968); Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951). The regulation is not unduly vague.

What occurred in this instance was a pointed verbal assault on fellow employees singled out for this purpose and confronted at the employees' place of work. Such conduct violates common decency, particularly when done, as is the case here, with the obvious intent to humiliate. Clearly if such excesses...