Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Elane Photography Discussion Post-Mortem: The Distributive Aspect of Speech and Religion Exceptions from Public Accommodations Laws

by Mike Dorf

As I noted in my Verdict column on First Amendment exceptions two weeks ago, claims for such exceptions have been much in the news lately--prompting a veritable mountain of commentary, including a fair bit from yours truly. Here I want to add a few more shovels of dirt to that mountain, but first, a couple of pieces of shameless self-promotion.

First, during the 10-11 am hour today, I'll be on MSNBC, talking about the Hobby Lobby cases, while the oral argument is going on in the courtroom. You know, in case you don't have anything better to do.

Second, pretty much as I anticipated in yesterday's post, during our discussion of Elane Photography, Professor Epstein mostly criticized public accommodations laws as such, largely agreeing with me that it's difficult to find free speech exceptions to such laws without undermining the laws themselves. Here I want to follow up that discussion with a point I might have made had the discussion taken a different turn.

I have in mind a distributive feature of exceptions for commercial actors from general laws. I think that for me, and perhaps for other liberals, part of the resistance to free speech and free exercise exceptions for commercial actors is that recognizing such exceptions would benefit business owners but not people who work for others for a living. I'll focus on speech but some of what I have to say will be relevant to religion as well, and thus a propos of Hobby Lobby.

Suppose two Albuquerque bakers: Elane and Jane. Elane owns her own bakery, whereas Jane works for the ABC Cake Shop (so-named, apparently so that it appears first in the Yellow Pages!). Elane and Jane are both opposed to same-sex marriage. Bill and Ted go to Elane Bakery and ask if Elane will bake them a wedding cake with the words "Blessed Marital Bliss for Bill and Ted". Elane says that, notwithstanding New Mexico's public accommodations law, she won't, because to do so would express a view--that same-sex marriages are "blessed"--with which she disagrees. Bill and Ted file a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, but they know that such complaints can take a while to adjudicate and, in the meantime, they need a wedding cake.

So Bill and Ted go to ABC Cake Shop, where the owner, Alice B. Chittendon (okay, I made that name up), tells Bill and Ted that she would be delighted to have their business. She takes their order and then asks her employee, Jane, to bake the cake. Jane tells Alice that she, Jane, doesn't want to bake the cake because she disagrees with the view that a same-sex marriage can be blessed. Alice tells Jane that she can't have her employees deciding on a cake-by-cake basis whose business to accept, and that if she doesn't bake and decorate the cake for Bill and Ted, Jane will be fired.

Jane pretty clearly does not have any kind of First Amendment claim that she is entitled to keep her job as a baker. Why not? Because the First Amendment, like nearly all of the rest of the Constitution, only applies to the government, and here it is Jane's private employer, not the government, who has told her to bake the offending cake. There's no state action, and thus no unconstitutional state action.

Juxtapose that result with the result sought by the critics of the New Mexico Supreme Court decision in Elane Photography. They say that (the real and presumably my hypothetical version of) Elane is entitled to a free speech exception, even though the burden on (the actual) Elane--a declaratory judgment and attorney fees--is substantially less than the burden on Jane--loss of her job. Put differently, to say that there are free speech exceptions from public accommodations laws means that there are such exceptions for employers, but not for employees.

Now, it might be objected that I've gilded the lily here, because we can produce lots of seeming anomalies by juxtaposing results from domains in which there is state action with results from domains in which there isn't. And that would be a fair objection were it not for the fact that even when the First Amendment does apply, it affords employees very little protection.

Suppose that Sam, who is also opposed to same-sex marriage, bakes for a cafeteria at the University of New Mexico, which is a state actor. Let's suppose that Hillary and Gloria are UNM alumni and that they are having their wedding and reception on campus, and that the cafeteria is baking and decorating a cake with the inscription "Blessed Marital Bliss for Hillary and Gloria." Sam is told by his government boss to bake and decorate the cake. Sam declines on free speech grounds. Here there's state action, but Sam loses anyway, pursuant to the employee speech doctrine. As the SCOTUS summarized the doctrine in 2006, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, government employees cannot be disciplined for voicing their opinions, as citizens, on matters of public concern, but that right does not extend to speech within the scope of the employee's official duties--as decorating a wedding cake surely would be for a baker.

It might still be objected that all I have done here is to show that people with more money get to exercise their rights more effectively than people with less money. The First Amendment isn't offended when a billionaire pays for political speech that I can't afford to pay for, and so, according to this objection, it's likewise not offended when Elane is given an exception that Jane and Sam do not get. In this view, the law doesn't give Elane an advantage; her money does; if Jane and Sam had the capital and know-how to start their own bakeries (or photography businesses), they would be on an equal footing with Elane.

I think there is something to that objection, but that it misses a big piece of what's going on in the employee speech cases. Those cases do not, after all, rest on the public/private distinction, because both Elane and Sam are having their freedom restricted by the government. Rather, the employee speech doctrine rests on the premise that when one enters the realm of the market, one has less expressive freedom than one enjoys when speaking (or otherwise acting) simply as a citizen. At least where, as here, we are trying to decide whether to extend free speech protection to a new class of claimants, I don't see a very good reason to extend it to business owners, given the (much more substantial) restrictions we tolerate for employees.


Postscript: In one of the examples above, the setting is a public university. Readers may wonder whether I mean to suggest by this example that the same employee speech rules apply throughout the public university--e.g., whether I mean that a biology professor or a poli sci professor with unorthodox views would have no stronger claim than the baker. The answer is no. I mean to express no view whatsoever on the relation between academic freedom and the First Amendment, at least not today.

6 comments:

Jimmyd said...

"The First Amendment isn't offended when a billionaire pays for political speech that I can't afford to pay for"

That's true as a descriptive matter but there are people, of which I am one, who think that is untrue as a normative matter. Indeed, I'd go so far as to I think that is untrue as as interpreted through the lens of orginalism.

/just saying, I know that's not you main point.

Hashim said...

I don't think "the employee speech doctrine rests on the premise that when one enters the realm of the market, one has less expressive freedom than one enjoys when speaking (or otherwise acting) simply as a citizen."

Rather, the doctrine rests on the premise that the Govt has more power to regulate speech in its employer capacity than in its sovereign capacity (precisely because most employers aren't subject to the 1A at all). See Garcetti et al.

For example, if the Govt adopted a law that directly regulated the speech of *private-sector* employees concerning their conditions of employment -- even through a speech-neutral law -- that regulation would be subject to full 1A scrutiny notwithstanding that the employees had "entered the realm of the market." (For example, a law that banned private-sector employees from causing disruption in the workplace would surely be subjected to full 1A scrutiny if it was applied to an employee who gave a speech that had the unintended effect of causing a work stoppage.)

So I think you are indeed trading on the fact that, unlike employers whose speech is regulated *by the Govt in its sovereign capacity*, employees who wish to speak in ways that their employers don't like are either not subject to state action at all (for private employees) or are subject only to nominal state action that is not really a full-blown exercise of *sovereign* power (for public employees). It's thus not at all surprising that employers can assert 1A defenses to govt regulation, but that employees have to do what their employers tell them. (And, by the way, your assumption that the employers have the leverage here is far from obvious -- it's not hard to imagine areas in this country where ABC would be subject to an employee strike and a customer boycott if it dared fire Jane for refusing to serve a same-sex customer on religious grounds.)

Cicy said...

(For example, a law that banned private-sector employees from causing disruption in the workplace would surely be subjected to full 1A scrutiny if it was applied to an employee who gave a speech that had the unintended effect of causing a work stoppage.)

Buy Fifa 14 Coins -http://fifa14.mmo18.com/PS4-Coins.html
LOL Boost

Lewis N. Clark said...

Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) (965–1040) studied the camera obscura and pinhole camera.. Fine Art Landscape Photography

qq terry said...

As they made their cheap fifa 14 coins bed on the hard floor, the older angel saw a hole fifa 14 coins in the wall and repaired it. When the younger angel asked why, the older angel cheap fifa 14 coins replied, "Things aren't always what they seem."

albina N muro said...

I truly feel evaluating white and black photography with it's movie equal is much like looking at apples with oranges. They merely are not exactly the same thing in look and feel. I discussed this at length in part 1 on this collection. When talking to professional photographer Hellen Van Meene she illustrate video as possessing "secret" Full Report. Now I'm not sure what the techical phrase for miracle is but artistically I realize exactly what Hellen signifies.