Law on Laborers Too Vague, Judge Says

A federal judge cast strong doubt Monday on the constitutionality of an ordinance barring day laborers from soliciting work from passing motorists in unincorporated parts of Los Angeles County.

U.S. District Judge George H. King told a lawyer for the county that the ordinance’s language is vague and overly broad, and he expressed concern that the county law is having a chilling effect on workers’ 1st Amendment rights.

The 1994 law makes it a misdemeanor for any person to solicit employment, business or money from motorists in moving vehicles.

Soliciting is defined as “any action which announces availability.” King said that could mean anything. “This statute is virtually unique in the sheer breadth of its definition,” the judge added.

King reserved judgment in the case, indicating that he would issue a written opinion, but he left little doubt about his sentiments.

Although the case focused on the county ordinance, King’s decision could have impact throughout the federal district court’s seven-county jurisdiction.

In Los Angeles County, 24 cities have ordinances restricting street solicitations by day laborers, said Victor Narro of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, a plaintiff in the case.

The judge’s comments Monday came during his questioning of Richard Kemalyan, a private attorney defending the Board of Supervisors against a civil rights lawsuit by the coalition and Sindicato de Trabajadores por Dia. The two groups are represented by lawyers from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Last October, King found that the ordinance did not contain language aimed specifically at suppressing free speech, but he gave the county supervisors two other legal hurdles to clear.

He directed them to show that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and that the day workers had other ways to solicit jobs.

On Monday, King expressed dissatisfaction with the county’s response.

He told Kemalyan the ordinance would have no trouble passing constitutional muster if it had been narrowly tailored to attack the problem of traffic congestion.

In this case, he said, “it’s hardly even a close call.”

King outlined various scenarios of day laborers walking on the sidewalk: some with signs, some without, some facing the street and some facing pedestrians.

In response, Kemalyan said the ordinance permits day laborers to solicit work from pedestrians on the sidewalk or from drivers who have pulled over and parked.

But the judge took issue with that answer.

Suppose a passing motorist is able to read a day laborer’s sign pointed at pedestrians? How is a law enforcement officer expected to know whether the sign was intended for pedestrians or motorists? And does the mere presence of a day laborer on a street corner known for pickups constitute “an action which announces availability?” King asked.

The judge also indicated that the county had failed to show that day workers had alternatives to standing on the sidewalks.

At one point, he expressed shock at Kemalyan’s suggestion that the laborers could solicit work from contractors in the parking lots of nearby building and supply stores. “And risk being arrested for illegal trespass?” asked King.

The judge had no questions for Thomas A. Saenz, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and after listening to King’s questioning of the county’s lawyer, Saenz told the judge he had “very, very little to say.”

According to unofficial estimates, about 20,000 day laborers, or jornaleros, ply street corners throughout Los Angeles County on any given day, providing a steady source of labor for contractors and homeowners.

The ordinance being challenged was sponsored by Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke in response to complaints from residents and businessmen in the vicinity of a Homebase store at Fairfax and Slauson avenues in Ladera Heights.

Those complaints included congested traffic, public urination, drug dealing, graffiti and harassment of neighborhood women.

Since early this year, however, the problems that inspired the law have largely disappeared, said Lt. Bruce Fogarty of the Marina sheriff’s station, which polices the area.

Fogarty said the improvement grew out of meetings between sheriff’s officials and the rights coalition.

“We communicated to the day laborers representatives--don’t obstruct traffic, don’t urinate in public, pick up their trash and that sort of thing,” he said.

He said the message appears to have gotten through.

“The complaints from the community have pretty much dried up,” he said.

Fogarty said that after meeting with officials from the offices of the county counsel and Burke, deputies have suspended enforcement of the day laborers’ law.

He said, however, that deputies continue to enforce other laws, such as those on public urination and obstructing traffic.