Personal Dress and the Freedom to "Express"

The Sunday edition of the Tulsa World contains an article by Ben Braun detailing the varying style of dress donned by various courthouse players, from civil clients and criminal defendants to the "young" attorney caught without a tie on "causal" day at the office. The full article can be found here.

Reading the article brought to mind the seminal First Amendment, freedom of expression case, Cohen v. California, 430 U.S. 15 (1971) (A decision also famous for Justice Harlan's quote, "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric"). For background:

"On April 26, 1968, [Cohen] was observed in the Los Angeles County Courthouse in the corridor outside of division 20 of the municipal court wearing a jacket bearing the words ‘F**k the Draft’ which were plainly visible. There were women and children present in the corridor. [Cohen] was arrested. [Cohen] testified that he wore the jacket knowing that the words were on the jacket as a means of informing the public of the depth of his feelings against the Vietnam War and the draft." (Omission added).

Although not addressed by the Tulsa World article, the battle between dress and protest continues to rankle both government and citizen.

Take, for example, the case of Nicole and Jeffery Rank, who, in July of 2004 purchased tickets to attend a speech by President Bush. The tickets "provided that patrons would be seated on a first come, first served basis, without regard to either political affiliation or affinity with the President or his policies."

On July 4, 2004, the Ranks entered the area designated for the speech. While waiting for the President to arrive, the Ranks removed their outer shirts to display t-shirts that bore the international “no” symbol (a circle with a diagonal line across it) superimposed over the word “Bush.” Both shirts also displayed on the left sleeve a small photograph of President Bush with the international “no” symbol superimposed over it, and on the right sleeve a “Kerry” button. The message on the back of Nicole Rank's t-shirt was “Love America, Hate Bush.” On the back of Jeffrey Rank's shirt was the message “Regime Change Starts at Home.”

A short time later, the Ranks were approached by White House Event Staff Members who informed the Ranks that they could not remain on the grounds while wearing t-shirts critical of the President. When the Ranks refused to remove the shirts, they were arrested for trespassing by law enforcement officers who had previously been told that “White House Staff had the authority to revoke any person's ticket....”

On August 16, 2007, the government paid the Ranks $80,000 to dismiss their claim in what the ACLU described as, "a real victory not only for our clients but for the First Amendment."

Given the settlement, it is unknown how courts would decide the issue presented by the Ranks. On the one hand, the Ranks argue the First Amendment protects their expression from governmental intrusion. On the other hand, well-settled First Amendment jurisprudence clearly stands for the proposition that expressive freedoms are not "absolute," i.e., appropriate time, place and manner restrictions may apply depending upon the type of forum in which the expression occurred, in addition to other, content-based restrictions, e.g., the First Amendment does not protect fighting words or words intended to incite others.

Because content-based restrictions are the most loathsome restriction on free expression, and because the Ranks' t-shirts articulated a purely political message, unburdened by patently offensive language, the government would likely argue the President's speech was not an open forum. In other words, by requiring attendees to purchase a ticket, the nature of the forum at issue was materially altered by the terms and conditions of the ticket itself. As such, the government could impose content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions.

In the Ranks' case, it appears they were singled out because of the message appearing on their shirts, and not for any other reason. As such, it is difficult to fathom a content-neutral "time, place, manner," restriction that would govern the Ranks' personal dress to the exclusion of their corresponding freedom of expression.

(A more detailed analysis of First Amendment time, place and manner jurisprudence in the Northern District of Oklahoma, in the context of city council meetings, can be found here).

Bifurcation

Courts have broad discretion to bifurcate claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). In a recent case, the defendant requested that the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma bifurcate plaintiff's breach of contract claim from the bad faith claim. The defendant claimed the bifurcation would conserve judicial resources and avoid prejudice to the defendant. The plaintiff did not object to the request.

Nevertheless, in a written opinion, the Court denied the request to bifurcate. The Court noted that it frequently conducts trials involving such claims and that, absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court does not bifurcate contract claims from bad faith claims during the liability/compensatory damages phase. And, the Court found no compelling reason to diverge from its general policy. The Court noted that it would bifurcate the liability/compensatory damages phase from the punitive damages phase, if necessary.

It should be noted that, in the state court system, the trial court (absent unusual circumstances) has no authority to bifurcate the contract claim from the bad faith claim. One Court has noted in an opinion that such "theories are connected and . . . should not be bifurcated." It appears that a state trial court has no discretion in this regard. "[T]he issue of whether the insureds had a legal right to recover from the uninsured motorist was not separable from the question of whether the insurer had a good-faith belief that it had a justifiable reason for withholding payment under the policy." See Newport v. USAA, 2000 OK 59, ¶ 26, 11 P.3d 190, 198

Summary Judgment to Non-Moving Party

An interesting opinion was issued by the Northern District of Oklahoma recently. Interesting on several fronts, actually. The case involved a "devout Muslim" who followed the tenets of Islam that "purport to advise followers to use Muslim prayer oils to enhance the spiritual value of their five daily prayers." The Department of Corrections had enacted a rule that, with a few exceptions, banned the sale of Muslim prayer oils in prison canteens and banned the in-cell possession and use of such oils by inmates. The plaintiff sued, claiming a violation of the First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion. Several years ago, the Northern District granted summary judgment to the defendant. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the Northern District's decision with respect to the First Amendment claim, noting that the defendant's policy was "rationally related to a legitimate penological interest." (The Tenth Circuit's opinion can be found here.) The Court remanded for purposes of allowing the district to consider whether the plaintiff -- who was pro se -- had adequately stated a claim under the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" or "RLUIPA." (RLUIPA can be found here and is discussed here.)

Following remand to the Northern District, the Court found that the plaintiff had stated a RLUIPA claim and, thereafter, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Instead of granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, the Court found that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment, even though the defendant had not formally filed a Rule 56 motion. In its order, the Court noted that "[t]he weight of authority is that summary judgment may be rendered in favor of the opposing party even though he has made no formal cross-motion under rule 56." According to the court, summary judgment in favor of the non-moving party is appropriate where "the Court can determine that the non-moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and if there is no procedural prejudice to the moving party. No procedural prejudice results if the court finds that the parties had the opportunity to present and did present all of the applicable facts concerning the parameters of their positions."

And the Court found that the parties had a "full opportunity to explore the scope of their positions." Applying a strict scrutiny analysis, the Court found that summary judgment was appropriate in favor of the DOC because the DOC had "demonstrated that the compelling state interest in maintaining security and order in a hostile penal system outweighs [the plaintiff's] interest in having the prayer oils in his cell and that limiting access to the prayers [sic] oils to that stored in the chapel or other facility is the least restrictive means of furthering the state's interests."

"Proffer" vs. "Establish" or "Show"

The Tenth Circuit issued a new opinion today in an ADEA case. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had failed to bring forth sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to whether the defendant's alleged nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her was actually a pretext for age discrimination. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.

The case discusses the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis with respect to summary judgment standards, finding that the well-known analytical framework applies even during summary judgment determinations. "In the employment discrimination context, there is no need for a trial if one party has failed to produce sufficient evidence to carry its burden of persuasion. It is therefore appropriate for a court to reference the burdens of proof articulated by McDonnell Douglas in determining whether the parties have come forward with sufficient evidence to make a trial necessary."

Interestingly, the Court also discussed the nature of the burdens placed on the parties during the summary judgment stage. The burden is one of "production." The Court noted that cases had often described the burden of production in general terms like "establish" or "show." The Court noted that a nonmovant is only required to "bring forth evidence tending to establish or show the material fact at issue." With respect to the defendant's obligation to produce evidence of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action, the Court stated that the proper terminology would be "proffer." Likewise, at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must "proffer some probative evidence that would be sufficient to sustain her burden of persuasion at trial, but she need not offer conclusive proof to the court in order to withstand summary judgment."

Word choice appears to matter in this context.