Judge to Rule on Ban of Playboy at Firehouses : Law: Firefighter claims that L.A. County’s prohibition against sexually oriented material at stations violates his 1st Amendment rights. The jurist hearing the case appears to favor his view.

A federal court judge said he will rule Thursday on whether the U.S. Constitution protects a Los Angeles County fireman’s right to read Playboy in the firehouse.

*

After a one-day trial--which included testimony that Playboy has female and blind readers who find the magazine worthwhile for its articles alone--U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson suggested Tuesday that he was leaning toward ruling in favor of county Fire Department Capt. Steven W. Johnson, 49.

Johnson challenged the county’s ban against having Playboy on the job after county officials said that such magazines could create an unpleasant atmosphere for outnumbered women firefighters.

The county was unable to show any requirement in federal anti-discrimination law “that supports this . . . policy of yours,” Wilson told Les Tolnai, a senior deputy county counsel who defended the ban.

“It doesn’t seem to be the type of case that requires this type of 1st Amendment limitation,” the judge said. He added that “evidence is persuasive that there are places in a firehouse that can provide a quiet place to read” Playboy or other such magazines without infringing on the workplace rights of women firefighters.

Johnson, a 27-year-veteran who lives in Corona del Mar, is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Playboy attorneys in his fight to regain his right to read Playboy at his Lake Los Angeles station, in the far northeast corner of the Antelope Valley.

Sexually oriented magazines were banned from all work locations--including dormitories, restrooms and lockers--under a sexual harassment policy enacted in July, 1992. Fire Department officials said the policy was needed to prevent a sexually charged environment for the department’s 11 women firefighters, who must work with about 2,400 men.

“This case is about thought control,” ACLU attorney Paul L. Hoffman said. “The government can’t regulate what men think about women . . . based on their desire not to have men think in a certain way.”

The county may have had good intentions, but the policy is vague and over broad, Hoffman argued.

*

“We’re not asking to foist Playboy magazine on women who don’t want to have it foisted on them,” Hoffman said. “All Capt. Johnson is asking for is that when he has his private time he wants to be able to read Playboy as he has been for the last 30 years.”

Tolnai countered that the county had no choice but to enforce the ban in order to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws.

“This case is not about thought control,” he said. “This case is about conduct control. The 1st Amendment does not provide the same type of protection in the workplace as it does everywhere else.”

Patricia Vaughan, a civilian county employee who helped draft the policy, testified that nude pictures of women at a county firehouse could create an undesirable atmosphere in which women would be viewed as sexual objects.

“There’s such a small number of women in the Fire Department it’s almost as if they are solo out there,” Vaughan said.

County firefighter Janet Babcock, appearing for the county, testified that before the ban, nude magazines did create such an atmosphere. “You had to put on a thick skin a lot of the time, go with the flow,” Babcock said. “Sometimes I needed to be more on guard.”

Babcock and another female firefighter submitted declarations to the court stating their opposition to lifting the ban. However, two other women firefighters filed declarations with the court contending they had no objections to the presence of such magazines in fire stations.