July 12, 2019 |
Appellate Court: In Itself, Being Almost Naked Isnât âExpressive Conductâ |
SEATTLE â If only they had performed exotic dance routines as they served coffee, the employees of âbikini baristaâ stands in Everett, Washington might have had a case. Granted, thatâs not precisely what the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said in its recent ruling in the case Edge v. City of Everett, but it is the gist of one aspect of the courtâs ruling. At issue in the case are some bikini barista stands which have operated in the Everett area for at least the last 10 years. At the term for such stands suggests, they feature scantily clad employees serving coffee and other beverages. Shortly after the first of these stands opened, the Everett Police Department (EPD) began receiving complaints about lewd conduct taking place at the stands â including one customer waiting in line who was âclearly touching his genitals through his clothes as he was waiting his turn.â One fact not disputed in the case is that while the stands may be called âbikiniâ barista stands, âtheir attire is significantly more revealing than a typical bikini,â as Judge Morgan Christen put it in the courtâs ruling last week. âThe district courtâs finding that at least some of the baristas wear little more than pasties and g-strings is well supported by the record,â Christen added. To make a long story short, while the EPD was able to document a variety of violations of the Cityâs existing lewd conduct ordinances, the investigations required to witness and record those violations were deemed too expensive and time consuming to justify, in part because âpolicing the stands detracted from EPDâs efforts to address the Cityâs other priorities.â Instead of enforcing the Cityâs existing ordinances against the barista stands, local officials decided to amend its statutory definition of âlewd actâ to include areas of the body typically left uncovered by the baristas. The City also created a new offense, âFacilitating Lewd Conduct,â under which an âowner, lessee, lessor, manager, operator, or other person in charge of a public placeâ is guilty of Facilitating Lewd Conduct if that person âknowingly permits, encourages, or causes to be committed lewd conductâ as it is now defined in the ordinance. Jovanna Edge, the owner of a bikini barista stand, and several of her employees sued the City over the amended ordinance, and the district court granted the plaintiffsâ motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined enforcement of the revised ordinance. The City appealed â leading us up to the Ninth Circuitâs decision this month. While the decision covers a lot of territory, of greatest interest and relevance to operators of adult businesses is the courtâs analysis of the plaintiffsâ claim that the Cityâs ordinance violates their First Amendment rights. Essentially, Judge Christen and her peers on the Ninth Circuit panel found that the plaintiffs hadnât shown their conduct in working at the stands was sufficiently expressive to be protected by the First Amendment â and to the extent the plaintiffs had shown they were expressing something, the message wasnât likely to be understood by the âaudienceâ of barista stand customers. âPlaintiffsâ First Amendment free expression claim asserts that the baristas convey messages such as âfemale empowerment,â âconfidence,â and âfearless body acceptanceâ by wearing bikinis while working,â Christen wrote. âIn support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs submitted declarations from several baristas explaining their views that âa bikini is not a sexual message, [itâs] more a message of empowerment,â âwe are empowered to be comfortable in our bodies,â âthe bikini sends the message that I am approachable,â âthe message I send is freedom,â and âmy employees expose messages through tattoos and scars.â The baristas assert that their choice of clothing demonstrates that they are âfun and more open,â and that wearing bikinis at work shows they are âempowered, confident, and free.â Plaintiff Edge, owner of Hillbilly Hotties, explained that her employeesâ dress allows them to âtell stories of who they are.ââ Interestingly, Christen homed in on the fact the baristas donât claim their message has an erotic component as a weakness in their argument. âNotably, in the district court and on appeal, plaintiffs persistently disavow that they are nude dancers or that they engage in erotic performances, conduct that is expressly protected under the First Amendment,â Christen wrote, citing the case Barnes v. Glen Theatre. âPlaintiffsâ argument is that simply wearing what they refer to as bikinis is itself sufficiently expressive to warrant First Amendment protection, and that the Cityâs new ordinance and amendments therefore impermissibly burden their speech.â As Christen noted in the ruling, while the courts have long accepted that expressive conduct is to be considered âspeechâ in the context of a First Amendment analysis, expressive conduct is âcharacterized by two requirements:  an âintent to convey a particularized messageâ and a âgreat likelihood⦠that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.â âEven if plaintiffs could show that their intent is to convey a particularized message, and thereby satisfy the first requirement for classification as expressive conduct⦠plaintiffsâ First Amendment claim falters for failure to show a great likelihood that their intended message will be understood by those who receive it,â Christen wrote. Adding that âcontext is everything when deciding whether others will likely understand an intended message conveyed through expressive conduct,â Christen asserts that the context in this case is âstarkly different from cases where First Amendment protection has been extended to expressive clothing or symbols.â Christen observed that the ordinance at issue âapplies at Quick-Service Facilities — coffee stands, fast food restaurants, delis, food trucks, coffee shops and drive-throughsâ and argued that this context would muddy the messages the plaintiffs said they were communicating through their attire. âIn other words, (the ordinance) applies at retail establishments that invite commercial transactions, and in these transactions, the baristas undisputedly solicit tipsâ Christen wrote. âThe baristasâ act of wearing pasties and g-strings in close proximity to paying customers creates a high likelihood that the message sent by the baristasâ nearly nonexistent outfits vastly diverges from those described in plaintiffsâ declarations. The commercial setting and close proximity to the baristasâ customers makes the difference.â Holding that the plaintiffs âhave not demonstrated a âgreat likelihoodâ that their intended messages related to empowerment and confidence will be understood by those who view them, we conclude that the mode of dress at issue in this case is not sufficiently communicative to merit First Amendment protection.â The Ninth Circuitâs decision is not the end of this case, though. While the panel vacated the district courtâs preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance, the case is now remanded to the district court for trial for further proceedings. |