The ACLU of Southern California sent a letter to the Kern County Board of Supervisors on June 25 urging that body to terminate County Human Relations Commissioner Douglas Hearn for making anti-gay remarks at commission meetings that the ACLU says make it impossible for the Human Relations Commission to fulfill its stated purpose to, "promote and safeguard the equal rights of and respect for all people within Kern County."

ACLU staff attorney Taylor Flynn sent the letter to all supervisors expressing concern that Hearn's public remarks at commission meetings directly undermine the ability of the Kern County Human Relations Commission to enforce state anti-discrimination laws and the commission's own purposes. In the letter, Ms. Flynn clarified that the First Amendment does not protect the comments of public officials which counter the expressed purpose of the agencies they serve.

"Commissioner Hearn's statements have been defended by members of the Board of Supervisors on the ground that his statements are protected under the First Amendment. This is incorrect. As the United States Supreme Court has long held, when a public official makes statements in his official capacity that are inconsistent with his official duties, those statements are not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed precisely this issuea San Francisco Human Rights commissioner had made anti-gay statements and then claimed that his statements were protected by the First Amendmenta claim which the court flatly rejected."

As reported in the June 4 issue of the Bakersfield Californian, "At a Human Relations Commission meeting held May 12, commissioner Douglas Hearn said homosexuals are `sick' and that he wouldn't want a gay teacher teaching his child, comments that were heard by James Merrick, a local teacher who attended the meeting because he was interested in joining the commission. The statements were confirmed by Hearn himself, who later elaborated on his opinions. `Any homosexual in my mind is sick,' he said. `I know those people are sick and I'll stand on that."

Kern County Supervisor Jon McQuiston, who appointed Hearn, defended his appointee, a Baptist minister. As reported in the June 10 edition of the Bakersfield Californian, "Hearn based his opinion on his religious beliefs, McQuiston said, and the commission sand the commission should tolerate members with differing beliefs."

But Taylor Flynn admonished the Board to, "acknowledge its obligation to remove Mr. Hearn from the Human Rights Commissiona public body which distributes flyers to encourage members of the gay and lesbian community to come to the Commission with reports of anti-gay violence and intolerance...The simple fact is that there is no possibility that the Human Rights Commission can effectively enforce the state's anti-discrimination laws while Mr. Hearn continues to serve as a commissioner."

The ACLU of Southern California today filed for a preliminary injunction in federal court to force the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to meet the basic transportation needs of mobility-impaired bus riders. The order sought would require the MTA to keep its wheelchair lifts and safety equipment in proper working order, promptly repair broken equipment, and provide alternative transportation for mobility-impaired passengers who are not able to board. The ACLU is also calling on the MTA to voluntarily make improvements in its service for disabled riders so that a court order will not be necessary.

Mobility-impaired riders have repeatedly complained about the failure to accommodate their disabilities, to no avail. More than five months after the lawsuit was brought, the MTA has still not agreed to make improvements in its service to mobility-impaired riders.

The ACLU's federal class action suit, filed on behalf of mobility-impaired bus riders in Los Angeles County [Beauchamp et al. v. Los Angeles County MTA, et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. 98-0402-CBM (BQRx)], charges that the MTA is failing miserably in its obligation to provide "full and equal access" to disabled bus riders. This lawsuit, filed January 16, was amended, June 2, into a class action. Plaintiffs charge that the MTA is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and other disability access laws. The ADA was enacted to dismantle barriers that prevent disabled individuals from obtaining equal opportunities, independence and economic self-sufficiency.

Plaintiffs charge that the MTA is breaking the law by failing to keep its wheelchair lifts in proper working order and that, on some lines, the lifts are broken more than 60% of the time. Frequently, mobility-impaired riders have been passed by completely, often without any explanation. The MTA has also endangered riders in wheelchairs by failing to keep its safety equipment operational or to use this equipment properly. The deplorable conditions on MTA buses have resulted in physical injuries, humiliation, emotional distress, and loss of wages to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are informed that the MTA Board will consider making voluntary improvements to its service for disabled riders, including wheelchair lifts and safety equipment, at its June 26 meeting. If the MTA Board refuses to make the necessary improvements, then a hearing will occur on July 20 at which plaintiffs will ask the federal district court for an order that would force the MTA to comply with the ADA and other disability access laws.

The ACLU is calling on the MTA Board to voluntarily agree to improvements in service to mobility-impaired riders, so that a court-ordered preliminary injunction will not be necessary.

ACLU staff attorney Dan Tokaji commented: "While the MTA has squandered billions of dollars on failed projects, the basic needs of disabled bus riders have gone unmet. The MTA has spent extravagant sums on plush new offices, but has failed to keep its wheelchair lifts in proper working order. As a result, mobility-impaired riders continue to suffer every day. Time and time again, disabled riders are left out in the cold or sweltering heat, while bus after bus passes them by. It is high time for the MTA to do right by disabled riders. If they won't make things better on their own, the MTA will face a court order forcing them to stop treating disabled people like second-class citizens."

This morning plaintiffs in Mochizuki vs United States announced settlement of the federal class action lawsuit filed in August 1996 seeking reparations and a formal apology from the United States government for the forcible kidnaping and imprisonment of Japanese Latin Americans during World War II.

Attorneys and representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the Japanese American Citizens League, and the National Coalition for Redress/Reparations announced the settlement agreement that provides a presidential apology and $5,000 reparation payment to survivors of the ordeal. While acknowledging the significance of the formal apology, former internees are none-the-less disappointed that the settlement does not guarantee redress payment, which is one quarter of the amount given to Japanese Americans who were interned at the same time. In addition, former internees must apply for redress by August 10, 1998.

Named plaintiff Carmen Mochizuki said at a news conference held in Los Angeles this morning, "I am disappointed that we did not receive the same amount of redress that was given to the Japanese Americans, however, I feel that we are victorious for making the United States government finally accept responsibility for its actions against us."

Mochizuki, is one of over 2,000 Latin Americans Japanese taken from their homes and transported to the US for use in a prisoner exchange with Japan during W.W.II. The prisoners were primarily legal residents and citizens of friendly nations who posed no military threat to the US. Forced to come to the US, they were imprisoned in Department of Justice camps and over 800 were exchanged for US citizens during the war.

The lawsuit challenged the denial of redress to Japanese Latin Americans under the Civil Liberties Act, a law passed in 1988 which mandates a government apology and $20,000 reparation to persons of Japanese ancestry who were deprived of liberty by the US government during W.W.II. Under the settlement, the US will provide a letter of apology signed by President Clinton for each former internee or the surviving heirs. Redress payments of $5,000 will be issued with the apology paid from the 1988 Civil Liberties Act fund, until the fund runs out. Figures from the Government indicate that could be soon. Advocates for the Japanese Latin Americans are counting on support from the Clinton Administration and Congress to seek additional funds.

Internees who have not yet applied for the Civil Liberties Act must do so by August 10, 1998. Claims must be postmarked by that date and received by the Office of Redress Administration no later than September 1998. The Department of Justice will contact former internees who have already applied for the redress. The most difficult task lies in locating the additional 400 estimated survivors or their heirs in time for the August 10 deadline. Survivors are concentrated in Japan and Latin America, but could reside anywhere in the world. The government has agreed to publish the settlement agreement in two major newspapers, one in Japan and one in Peru, within 25 days. Campaign for Justice, the coalition supporting Japanese Latin American redress will continue efforts to locate former internees.

After satisfying the remaining eligible claims from Japanese Americans, the Office of Redress Administration, which processes claims under the Civil Liberties Act, expects the funds to drop from 11.4 million to 4.4 million, enough for 880 payments of $5,000. Advocates for Japanese Latin Americans say the monies will not cover the 1200 Japanese Latin American internees who may apply. The Clinton administration has promised to support legislative efforts to ensure the payment to all JLAs who apply and to extend the life of the Civil Liberties Act until December 1998, should the money run out.