This morning the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California challenged a motion for a preliminary injunction in a Superior Court lawsuit that would limit the residents of a HUD-subsidized housing project from inviting tenant organizers to their apartments to help improve conditions.

The ACLU says the lawsuit, L.A. Coalition for Economic Survival, et al. (Case # BC 184443) is an attempt by the building's management to thwart the free speech, privacy, associational and property rights of the residents of L.A. Gardens, located in the Pico-Union area of downtown Los Angeles. The ACLU says the injunction motion lacks merit and that the landlord's actions violate federal and state constitutions and federal laws governing federally-subsidized housing. Defendants are staff members with both the Coalition for Economic Survival and the Los Angeles Center for Economic Survival, both long-time community-based tenants' rights organizations that have worked with L.A. Gardens' tenants since 1995. Staff from both groups were invited to meetings by residents. After the organizers arrived, a building manager called the LAPD and had them arrested, even though residents told police that they had invited the organizers.

Both tenant groups have participated in resident meetings in an orderly manner and with the approval and funding of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development which supports tenant organizing activities under federal housing regulations.

In papers filed in this case, the ACLU call the motion for a preliminary injunction ". . .the landlord's latest move in a campaign of harassment and intimidation waged against tenants and their invited tenant organizers alike, a campaign that has included the unlawful citizen's arrests of tenant organizers and threatened further arrests against both tenants and their invited guests."

ACLU attorneys call attempts to restrict tenant organizers draconian. For example, under the terms of the proposed preliminary injunction, residents would be required to give the building management 48 hours notice of any meetings. The injunction would prohibit the organizers from accompanying a tenant to the door of a neighbor to discuss matters of common concern, even if the neighbor requests such a meeting.

The ACLU says that plaintiffs failed to prove that any of the tenant organizers ever trespassed. In fact, the ACLU said, at all times, the defendants were invited by residents who wanted to speak with them. Under HUD guidelines, tenants and their invited guests may engage in "reasonable canvassing" about tenant concerns, building governance, and related matters, activities which are encouraged and funded under a HUD outreach and training grant.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California is opposing legislation to be introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein as the Personal Privacy Protection Act which would criminalize constitutionally-protected activities by photographers. If passed, the measure would make it a federal crime to follow a celebrity for the purpose of taking photographs and impose a minimum sentence of five years if bodily injury occurs. In addition, the use of certain photographic equipment such as zoom lenses could be considered trespassing.

The ACLU of Southern California says that current laws make harassment of any one celebrity or otherwise a crime, and that this proposed legislation places a burden on the First Amendment.

Commenting on the proposed measure, ACLU of Southern California Executive Director Ramona Ripston said, "The First Amendment is not a one-way street. Those who benefit from a free press must be willing to give it breathing room. Only that way can the First Amendment survive. Creating more crimes, particularly more federal crimes, is the politician's easy solution to all problems. Imposing lengthy minimum prison terms and preventing the use of ordinary photographic equipment is not the answer. Recent experience has shown that state law will handle any excesses by the media."

In a first-of-its-kind challenge to a growing national trend to force employees to waive their right to sue, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed lawsuits against two companies for firing an employee who refused to sign an agreement forcing him to accept binding arbitration to resolve any work-related disputes.

The lawsuits, Lagatree vs Keesal, Young & Logan [Case 185962] and Lagatree v Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps [Case 185963], were filed Friday in State Superior Court against two Southland legal firms who tried to force Donald Lagatree of Long Beach to sign a final and binding arbitration agreement waiving his right to go to court with any future disputes he might have with the companies.

The ACLU charges that the defendants have violated Mr. Lagatree's right to bring disputes to court and to trial by jury as guaranteed by the First and Seventh Amendments of the United States constitution and articles 1 and 16 of the California constitution, as well other state and federal statutes concerning the rights of employees.

"Most of us need to work, " said David Schwartz, Senior Staff Counsel of the ACLU of Southern California. "Employers are taking unfair advantage of that fact by bullying employees into giving up rights in exchange for getting or keeping their jobs. When an employee finds he or she has a claim, suddenly it hits them that they can't take their employer to court. It's grossly unfair for companies to force employees to check their constitutional rights at the office door."

Plaintiff Donald Lagatree is a professional legal secretary. In March of 1994, he was hired by the law firm of Keesal, Young & Logan after working there for six months in a full-time temporary capacity. Mr. Lagatree received satisfactory or better job performance reviews. In June 1997, the firm asked him to sign a pre-printed standard arbitration agreement requiring him to waive his right to go to court over claims against his employer such as fraud, breach of contract or even "whistle blower" claims.

After receiving the form, Mr. Lagatree told the management, including a firm partner, that he did not wish to agree to arbitration of any future disputes and would, therefore, not sign the agreement. On June 30, 1997, Mr, Lagatree was fired for refusing to sign the arbitration agreement.

On September 12, 1997, Mr. Lagatree was offered a position as legal secretary with the law firm of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps and to report for work on September 16. On his first day of work, after beginning his job duties, Mr. Lagatree was given a memo entitled "Letter of Employment," which confirmed the offer of employment and contained the following paragraph:

In the event of any dispute or claim between you and the firm (including employees, partners, agents, successors and assigns), including but not limited to claims arising from or related to your employment or termination of your employment, we jointly agree to submit all such disputes or claims to confidential binding arbitration, under the Federal Arbitration Act.

On September 18, 1997, Mr. Lagatree informed the management of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps that he did not wish to give up his right to take disputes to court and that he would refuse to sign the Letter of Employment. At a meeting with management, Mr. Lagatree was told that the arbitration agreement was not negotiable and that his employment was contingent upon his signing the agreement. Mr. Lagatree declined to sign the letter and he was immediately let go.