Huntington Park Judges ‘Incredulous’ : English-Only Rule Still Creating Uproar

When Suzanne Cook, a Southeast Municipal Court clerk, complained last year that a Latino co-worker’s gossip about her in Spanish had prompted her to seek a new job, the court’s judges took note.

Cook was not the first clerk to bring the dispute over language to the attention of supervisors. Several clerks had complained to their office supervisors that the number of private conversations in Spanish was growing, and two clerks had approached the court’s judges, who normally had limited contact with the clerk’s office, said a supervisor who asked not to be named.

The court’s judges say they were surprised to find that an emotional tempest was brewing over the problem. Cook said she was offended by a marked increase in Spanish conversations among three or four Latino clerks she worked with and hoped to leave her job at the Huntington Park courthouse. A few others were talking about following suit.

Moreover, several of the 27 full-time clerks, including Anglos, blacks and even some Latinos, complained that a handful of Latino clerks were increasingly using Spanish to cloak their conversations and occasionally made it clear that they were discussing co-workers.

In what they say was an attempt to defuse the problem, the judges issued a rule in March of 1984 prohibiting the use of any language but English during working hours.

Attempt Backfired

In hindsight, they now admit, that attempt backfired miserably.

Judges Russell Schooling, John Bunnett and Porter deDubovay, speaking for the first time about their role in the widely reported controversy, said in interviews that they are “incredulous” over the havoc their rule has caused.

In the year after the rule was issued, Alva Gutierrez, the clerk at the core of the dispute, stepped up her use of Spanish with two Latino co-workers, according to several clerks and two supervisors. Heated arguments broke out between English-speakers and Latinos over whether the Latinos should follow the judges’ order, they said.

Last month, Gutierrez filed a civil lawsuit against the judges, claiming discrimination. She is now on a stress-related medical leave from her job because of the controversy, according to her attorney, Gloria Allred.

Although both sides agree that the rule was never formally enforced, Allred and Gutierrez claim that Gutierrez’s right to speak in any language she is comfortable with was violated when the judges issued the order.

“My client has suffered extreme personal damage,” Allred said. Allred has claimed in her federal lawsuit that the English-only rule was used as a “covert basis for national origin discrimination” and to create “an atmosphere of racial and ethnic oppression.”

Gutierrez said in an interview that as a result of the rule, “my life has been disrupted and I am under a lot of stress. I feel as if I am fighting this alone, and it is not a very good feeling.”

Second Lawsuit Promised

Richard Reyna, attorney for Local 660, Service Employees International Union, has promised he will also file a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of at least one other Latino employee, hinting that “a major Hispanic organization” will join the fray.

He declined to say how many clerks will be represented by his suit and he has advised his clients not to talk to the press until the suit is filed.

Reyna says that the English-only rule violates federal civil rights laws enacted in 1964, which protect a person’s choice of speech. He also argues that the rule “has had a chilling effect on Latinos in the workplace.”

“An example was made of Alva and now they have all been intimidated,” he said. “The full force of the court is coming down on these women.”

But the controversy has gone well beyond the aging courthouse in Huntington Park. In the past month, the judges have been attacked as racists by Latino activists and embraced as patriotic Americans by a right-wing movement that wants to declare English the official language of the United States.

The hubbub has left the judges shaking their heads.

Bunnett, Schooling and deDubovay say the dispute has been widely misrepresented by the press, by Reyna and Allred, and by county officials who want to rid themselves of a political hot potato.

Support for Rule

Media coverage has focused almost exclusively on Gutierrez’s claims. However, eight clerks who support the rule wrote a letter to the union, Local 660, challenging the union’s involvement and saying they were not being represented. The clerks told the union that the English-only rule was needed to head off Gutierrez’s increasingly disruptive use of Spanish. The clerks say the union has never responded.

The judges are being backed by a group of employees that includes at least two of the courthouse’s 10 full-time Latino clerks.

And, according to Greg Petersen, an attorney for the judges, about half of the 27 full-time clerks--including Anglos, Latinos and blacks--have signed depositions supporting the judges’ rule or have indicated that they will.

The judges said they have gone out of the way to treat all of the clerks fairly and “have taken extra care” to avoid learning specific names of the other Latino women who oppose the rule. Co-workers say at least two Latino clerks are openly backing Gutierrez, and perhaps one or two others agree with her position.

Clerks who support the judges say the controversy has created a bitter rift in what was once a friendly and cooperative workplace.

Adele Schilling, an Anglo clerk, said that since Gutierrez went on medical leave in February, “the storm has settled down a lot, but there is still a lot of mistrust.”

‘Out of the Blue’

She said Gutierrez’s claims of oppression and unfair treatment “are coming from out of the blue.”

“Alva has accused other employees of hissing at her and throwing something at her” in a widely reported interview, Schilling said. “We were really flabbergasted. Nothing even remotely like that has happened here.”

Dee Plante, an Anglo bookkeeper, agreed. She said she and Gutierrez were once “good friends, but she won’t even return my calls anymore. I spent my lunch hour once crying over this whole thing because things used to be so nice here.”

The clerks, including one Latino, said the judges and English-speaking clerks have been unfairly portrayed as discriminating against Latinos.

Suzanne Cook, a black employee who was among the first to complain about the use of Spanish to her supervisor, said the dispute “had absolutely nothing to do with our races, and everything to do with common courtesy.”

She recalled a day at work when she tripped or dropped something “and the banter in Spanish really got going, and it was obvious that they were laughing at me for doing something stupid.”

If she had understood their jokes, she said, “it wouldn’t have been a real big thing, because I would have just shot a comment back. But instead I had to keep it inside, and that was incredibly frustrating. After months of that kind of tension, I was looking for a new job.”

‘Be More Courteous’

One Latino clerk, who asked not to be named, said that when she heard about the English-only rule, “my interpretation of it was, ‘Be more courteous. Do not abuse your Spanish-speaking or bilingual abilities.’ I completely support the rule.”

She said that in the courthouse, “I have never been discriminated against by the judges, the supervisors or by my co-workers, and neither has anyone else I’ve ever heard about.”

But Gutierrez said last week that the problem went well beyond a question of common courtesy. She said she was never told that her practices were bothering anyone.

“I was shocked when I got the notice about the rule,” she said. “We were minding our own business, doing our jobs, and suddenly we were told how we could or could not talk.”

Gutierrez said that now, when she thinks about what has happened to her, “I just start shaking. I don’t like to even talk about it.”

However, Plante and several other clerks said Gutierrez was asked to change her behavior many times.

“I went to Alva and tried to explain to her, but she kept saying I was just upset that she was bilingual,” Plante said. “I couldn’t make her see how bad it feels when you know the people around you are purposely talking so that you cannot understand.”

Plante likened the practice to “a couple of English-speaking gals whispering in front of the Latino gals. The Latino gals would have gotten upset, and I wouldn’t have blamed them.”

Court employees accused Reyna, the union attorney, of misrepresenting the scope of the problem by claiming that the rule caused a hardship on Latino clerks whose primary language was Spanish.

Equally Fluent

According to two supervisors who asked not to be named, the Latino clerks, including Gutierrez, are equally fluent in English and Spanish and were raised and educated in the United States.

Bunnett and the other judges also defended the rule as an attempt to promote more courteous treatment of co-workers, and nothing more.

The judges said they believe that their rule is proper and legal, and they are “disturbed and very unhappy” to be painted by county officials as villains in what they see as a politically overcharged debate.

Last week, the county Board of Supervisors publicly castigated the judges for their “discriminatory rule” and refused to pay for private attorneys the judges were forced to hire after county attorneys dropped out of the judges’ case.

Schooling and Bunnett said they were particularly angry with the county counsel’s office for reversing its opinion on the legality of the English-only rule.

DeDubovay, who said he kept an account of his dealings with the county counsel, said it was not until September--seven months after the rule was issued--that the county counsel’s office indicated they “had a problem” with the rule. When the union challenged the rule last March, he said, the judges contacted a deputy county counsel who assured them then, and over a period of several months, that the rule was legal.

In September, the judges met with Robert Arias, the county affirmative action officer, who told them the rule violated 20-year-old federal civil rights laws.

Suprised by Claim

DeDubovay said the judges were surprised by his claim and agreed to read any cases the county could provide that showed they had broken the law.

However, in a summary of cases they were sent, the judges said they found further support for the legality of the English-only rule. A 1980 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, they say, upheld an employer’s right to require the use of English in the workplace.

Despite mounting pressure from several county officials to rescind the rule, the judges instead issued a slightly modified rule indicating that the requirement to speak English did not apply to lunch hour or work breaks.

In November, Arias released a highly critical report to the county Civil Service Commission calling the judges’ rule blatantly discriminatory. The Civil Service Commission, which had agreed to hear the case, has been temporarily prohibited from doing so by the 2nd District Court of Appeals. The judges are suing to remove the commission from the case, arguing that the commission is an executive branch of government and has no jurisdiction over the courts.

Then, in December, the judges received written notice from County Counsel DeWitt Clinton that his office was “unavailable” for further legal representation. Clinton said he told the judges their rule was legally indefensible.

The judges said the county has meddled in questions that can only be decided in a courtroom.

However, Local 660 attorney Reyna said the judges “are totally at fault here.”

‘Protracted Battle’

“We are talking about a long and protracted battle when all the judges had to do was rescind the rule,” Reyna said. He accused the judges of “soliciting support among the Anglo staff members and playing on their loyalties” to get employees to speak out for them.

But several employees said it is Reyna who has fanned the dispute, demanding that the rule be rescinded even though many clerks supported it.

“Reyna never came and talked to any of us,” said Schilling, a clerk. “He has gone out of his way to make things one-sided and has never once tried to mediate with those of us who support the judges.”

One supervisor, who asked to remain anonymous, said that until the dispute was aired over television and appeared in numerous newspapers, “We didn’t have any distinctions of races, and we all worked together.”

Now, the supervisor said, “We’re all waiting for this thing to die out so we can go back to work. Despite all this, we really have a great bunch of people here.”