IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, ) ) ) DATE: TIME: ) TRIAL: None Set. Defendants.

Transcription

1 Gary G. Kreep, Esq. ( UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION 01 East Valley Parkway, Suite 1-C Escondido, CA 0 (0 1-0 Telephone (0 1- Facsimile Richard D. Ackerman, Esq. (10 Scott Douglas Lively, Esq. Dana Cody, Esq. LIVELY, ACKERMAN & CODY 10 Sunrise Boulevard, Suite H Fair Oaks, California (1 - (1-1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, REGINA REDERFORD, ROBIN CHRISTY, GOOD NEWS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GOOD NEWS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, REGINA REDERFORD, and ROBIN CHRISTY, v. Plaintiffs, JOYCE M. HICKS, in her individual and official capacities, as Deputy Executive Director of the Community & Economic Development Agency of the CITY OF OAKLAND, ROBERT C. BOBB, in his individual and official capacity, as City Manager of the CITY OF OAKLAND, CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendants. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR: 1. Declaratory Relief. Injunctive Relief. Damages DEMAND FOR JURY DATE: TIME: DEPT: TRIAL: None Set I. JURISDICTION 1. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly, the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; under federal law, particularly, United States Code (hereinafter 1

2 referred to as U.S.C. 01 and U.S.C., 1; and under the Constitution of the State of California, particularly, Article 1,. IntraDistrict Assignment. This case is filed in this location and division because the incidents giving rise to this litigation occurred in the City of Oakland, State of California.. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction over the federal claims by operation of U.S.C. 1,,, and has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C. to hear claims arising under the Constitution and laws of the State of California.. This Court is vested with the authority to grant declaratory relief and judgment by virtue of U.S.C. 01, et seq... This Court is vested with the power to issue injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as FRCP Rule.. This Court is authorized to grant attorneys fees pursuant to U.S.C. 1. II. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES. Plaintiff REGINA REDERFORD (hereinafter referred to as REDERFORD, is an employee of the CITY OF OAKLAND and the cofounder of plaintiff GOOD NEWS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (hereinafter referred to as GNEA, an unincorporated association of persons. MS. REDERFORD is a citizen of the United States and employed in the City of Oakland, where the acts giving rise to this litigation occurred.. Plaintiff ROBIN CHRISTY (hereinafter referred to as CHRISTY, is an employee of the CITY OF OAKLAND and the cofounder of GNEA, an unincorporated association of persons. CHRISTY is a citizen of the United States and employed in the City of Oakland, where the acts giving rise to this litigation occurred.. Plaintiffs, and their associates, regularly engage in prayer and other peaceful activities as part of their expressive, political, and religious activities with GNEA. Plaintiffs have advertised their club activities by way of flyers and other information as demonstrated in Exhibit ", attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3 Plaintiffs are members of the loosely knit system of religious beliefs commonly called Christianity. Defendants are aware of this fact and have acted in conscious disregard of the related rights of Plaintiffs as alleged below.. Defendant JOYCE M. HICKS (hereinafter referred to as HICKS, is the Deputy Director of the Community and Economic Development Agency of the CITY OF OAKLAND (hereinafter referred to as CITY. She is personally responsible for enforcing the unconstitutional policy attached hereto as Exhibit 1", and made a part hereof. Moreover, she personally, while acting under color of law, took punitive action against the First Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs, and each of them.. Defendant ROBERT C. BOBB (hereinafter referred to as BOBB, is the City Manager of CITY. He is also personally responsible for enforcing and drafting the unconstitutional policy attached hereto as Exhibit 1". Moreover, he personally, while acting under the color of law, took punitive action against the First Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs, and each of them. He is apparently no longer the City Manager as of July 1, 00. However, he was the state actor directly responsible for implementing the unconstitutional policies mentioned herein. He did so with the direct knowledge, instruction, and authority given him by his superiors, the City of Oakland s City Council and Mayor s office.. CITY is a municipal entity within the meaning of Monell v. Dep. of Co. Serv., U.S. (1. BOBB, as City Manager, was a final policymaker for CITY at all times relevant herein. His actions resulted in execution of CITY s official policies, customs, and/or rules. The enforcement of these edicts fairly represented CITY policy and inflicted the damages and violation of rights alleged herein. The office that BOBB, HICKS and Plaintiffs REDERFORD and CHRISTY worked at was an area of CITY s public business. CITY has ratified, as a matter of law, the acts of BOBB and HICKS. 1. Venue is proper in this case because the acts complained of took place in the City of Oakland, State of California. U.S.C. 1(b. //// ////

4 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The individual plaintiffs are employees of CITY. Their superiors include the Defendants identified herein. 1. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, the exact contents and words of Exhibits 1" and " as attached hereto. 1. In or about March, 00, a homosexual group of employees was given free access to the system of CITY for purposes of advertising their various associational, political, and other activities. 1. When Plaintiffs later asked to be given the same opportunity to communicate with other employees about their Christian activities, they were denied equal accommodation. Defendants did so because they do not approve of the Christian beliefs, practices, and activities of Plaintiffs. Defendants have and will, without intervention of this Court, continue to engage in discriminatory behavior that persecutes, silences, and segregates Christian employees. 1. On or about January, 00, Plaintiffs attempted to announce the existence and activities of GNEA to other employees of CITY. Exhibit " is a true and correct copy of the flyer used to so inform other employees. At the direction, bequest, and orders of Defendants, the flyer was forcibly removed on or about January, 00, from the employee bulletin board of the department that Plaintiffs work in (i.e., the Community & Economic Development Agency. 0. Prior to, and after, January, 00, the employee bulletin board was allowed to be used by all other employees for the purpose of promoting various political, social, and religious causes and events. Punitive action was not, and has never been, taken against other employees responsible for posting such information, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Exhibit " is a true and correct copy of various items of information that have been placed, without interference or censorship, on display on the employee bulletin board. Defendants have shown an unlawful preference for human secularism and homosexual world views. Conversely, Defendants, although state actors, and acting as agents for CITY, have taken an affirmative and

5 explicit stance against the religious views of Plaintiffs. 1. On or about February 0, 00, Defendants, and each of them, while acting under color of law, developed, implemented, enforced, and instituted the policy attached hereto as Exhibit 1". The policy is presently being enforced and was a direct and discriminatory response against the First Amendment activities of Plaintiffs. Defendants have not attempted to similarly silence any other group of employees, although homosexual advocacy groups and others exist at Defendants offices.. Specifically, Defendants have and will continue to enforce a censorship policy against anything they believe to be homophobic. Exhibit " has unlawfully been declared to be homophobic and has been censored from public display at Plaintiffs place of employment. The actions of Defendants have a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs herein. IV. ALLEGATIONS OF LAW. All of the acts of Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, or persons acting at their behest or direction, were done, and are continuing to be done, under the color and pretense of state law, including the ordinances, regulations, customs, policies, and usages of CITY.. Plaintiffs have no adequate or speedy remedy at law to correct or redress the deprivations of their federal and state rights by Defendants.. Unless and until the actions taken by Defendants, as described above and below, are enjoined, Plaintiffs will suffer, and continue to suffer, irreparable injury to their federal and state constitutional rights. Defendants have, and are, acting in conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs hereby reallege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this

6 Plaintiffs believe that they must and may regularly associate with friends, coworkers, and others in CITY to express their devotion to God through communal prayer, fellowship, discussion regarding religious literature, and other religious speech.. Communal prayer and association are central to the exercise of Plaintiffs Christian faith.. Defendants actions are a content-based restriction of expressive speech. 0. Defendants actions are under-inclusive, as they do not restrict or intend to chill meetings which do not incorporate prayer, statements of belief, or other religious expression. Defendants promote homosexuality and its views on religion, and openly denounce Christian views which have been doctrine for thousands of years. 1. Defendants actions and the language of the laws enforced herein are overbroad, as they sweep within their ambit protected First Amendment expression.. The policy attached as Exhibit 1" is unconstitutionally vague on its face.. The policy attached as Exhibit 1" has been unconstitutionally applied to protected First Amendment activities of Plaintiffs.. The policy reflected in Exhibit 1" was not applied in the least restrictive way possible by Defendants, such that Plaintiffs constitutional rights would be protected.. The laws enforced by Defendants in this case did not provide adequate notice of [their] scope nor sufficient guidance for [their] application.. The laws enforced by Defendants in this case did not provide explicit standards by which Defendants could enforce any legitimate state interest, without violating the rights of the Plaintiffs.. The activities of Plaintiffs, as alleged above, did not interfere with workplace activities of CITY.. The policy attached as Exhibit 1" is not of general and neutral applicability.. Praying, meeting, and associating at lunch time, after work hours, before work hours, or at other non-city time, is a constitutionally permitted and protected activity of Plaintiffs and others who wish to associate with them.

7 Defendants have no compelling interest in limiting the frequency of communal prayer or employee associational activities on private time. 1. Defendants have no compelling interest in allowing the homosexual employees club better access to means of communication than the religious clubs or employees on site.. Defendants actions thus constitute a violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.. Defendants actions have intentionally interfered with the religious and speech rights of the Plaintiffs and have, as a result, caused damage to Plaintiffs.. Defendants actions were a legal cause of damages and interference with the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.. Defendants will continue to cause same or similar harm to Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, if this Court does not enjoin Defendants from doing so. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court grant the equitable and legal SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the right to peaceable assembly under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs hereby reallege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this. Plaintiffs believe that they must regularly associate with friends, coworkers, and others on private time to express their devotion to God through communal prayer, fellowship, discussion regarding religious literature, and other religious speech.. Communal prayer and associational activity are central to the exercise of Plaintiffs Christian faith. It is an associational activity.. Defendants actions chill, deter, and restrict Plaintiffs from assembling for religious associational activities.. 0. Defendants have no compelling interest in limiting the peaceable assembly of

8 individuals on private time at their workplace. 1. Defendants actions, and the language of the laws enforced herein, are overbroad, as they sweep within their ambit protected First Amendment expression.. Defendants actions have interfered with the religious and speech rights of Plaintiffs and have, as a result, caused damage to Plaintiffs.. Defendants actions were a legal cause of damages and interference with the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.. Defendants will continue to cause same or similar harm to Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, if this Court does not enjoin Defendants from doing so.. Defendants actions thus constitute a violation of Plaintiffs right of peaceable assembly under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated and applied to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court grant the equitable and legal THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the right to privacy under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs hereby reallege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this. Plaintiffs believe that they must regularly associate with friends, coworkers and others on their private time to express their devotion to God through communal prayer, discussion regarding religious literature, and other religious speech.. Communal prayer and associational activity (fellowship are central to the exercise of Plaintiffs Christian faith.. Defendants actions restrict, chill, and inhibit the speech of individuals within the privacy of their associations with others. 0. Defendants have no compelling interest in restricting, chilling, and deterring the content and viewpoint of otherwise lawful private speech.

9 Defendants actions thus constitute a violation of Plaintiffs privacy rights that are implicit in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court grant the equitable and legal FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this. Defendants designation of Plaintiffs activities as homophobic and the decision to censor Plaintiffs religious views substantially interferes with the rights of Plaintiffs to express and practice their religious beliefs in a lawful way.. Defendants actions were a legal cause of damages and interference with the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.. Defendants will continue to cause same or similar harm to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated if this Court does not enjoin Defendants from doing so.. Defendants actions thus constitute a violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the equitable and legal FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs hereby allege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this. Defendants determination that GNEA engaged in homophobic activities is made in the absence of any objective standards and criteria.

10 Plaintiffs do not know when an ordinary social gathering might be determined or concluded to be a homophobic activity by Defendants. 0. The standards upon which Defendants actions are based are impermissibly vague and allow for the exercise of unconstitutional unfettered discretion by Defendants. 1. Defendants actions thus constitute a violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the equitable and legal SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs hereby allege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this. Defendants have treated Plaintiffs in a discriminatory and punitive way that is not applied to other groups and individuals wishing to engage in expressive activity.. Defendants actions thus constitute a violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant the equitable and legal relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the Establishment Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs hereby allege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this. Defendants actions are targeted at, and are intended to discourage, chill, and inhibit, religious expressive activities and religious meetings by CITY employees.. To determine whether a gathering of CITYemployees is religious or homophobic in nature, Defendants must analyze the content of speech and other expressive activity.. Obtaining sufficient information for Defendants to analyze the content of speech

11 and other expressive activity requires ongoing, comprehensive government surveillance that impermissibly entangles Defendants with religion and, thus, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant the equitable and legal relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs hereby allege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this 0. Defendants actions impermissibly damaged the property of Plaintiffs herein. 1. Defendants actions exceed their legitimate governmental interests and constitute a violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated and made applicable to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the equitable and legal NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the Constitution to the State of California. Plaintiffs hereby allege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this. Plaintiffs rights of speech, peaceable assembly, expressive conduct, and free exercise are impermissibly restricted, chilled, deterred, and inhibited by the actions of Defendants.. Defendants actions constitute a violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Constitution of the State of California, Article I,. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the equitable and legal

12 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: The actions of Defendants are ultra vires acts that violate the laws and regulations of the City of Oakland.. Plaintiffs hereby allege all matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this. Defendants actions are thus ultra vires and unlawful according to the laws and regulations of CITY as actually expressed in Exhibit 1". Specifically, the very nondiscrimination laws cited by Defendants protect Plaintiffs from the unlawful action taken herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the equitable and legal V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment as follows: A. That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment declaring that the actions of Defendants in refusing to grant Plaintiffs the right to meet, inform, pray and worship on private employee time are invalid and unconstitutional under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California, and under the statutory laws of the State of California. B. That this Court declare that the actions of Defendants in denying Plaintiffs right to pray, associate, communicate religious ideas, and worship is ultra vires and unlawful according to the laws and regulations of the City of Oakland. C. That this Court issue a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction restraining Defendants from prohibiting Plaintiffs from religiously associating and communicating at their workplace. D. That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing the Court s Orders; E. That this Court award Plaintiffs costs and expenses of this action, including a reasonable attorneys fees award, in accordance with U.S.C. 1 and other applicable law; F. That this Court adjudge, decree and declare the rights and other legal relations of

13 the parties to the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declarations shall have the force and effect of final judgment; and G. That this Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper. Respectfully submitted, Dated: July, 00 By: RICHARD D. ACKERMAN, ESQ., SCOTT DOUGLAS LIVELY, ESQ., DANA CODY, ESQ., LIVELY, ACKERMAN & CODY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, by appearance pro hac vice DEMAND FOR JURY Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury trial in this matter By: RICHARD D. ACKERMAN, ESQ., Attorney for Plaintiffs, by appearance pro hac vice CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED PERSONS & ENTITIES Counsel herein have a financial interest only so far as attorneys fees may be awarded pursuant to U.S.C. 1. No other financial interests are known to exist relative to this action. By: RICHARD D. ACKERMAN, ESQ., Attorney for Plaintiffs, by appearance pro hac vice