Filed Date: May 18, 2010
Closed Date: Nov. 25, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
On May 18, 2010, two organizations comprised of day laborers and/or predominately Latino immigrant workers filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against the Town of Oyster Bay. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and LatinoJustice PRLDEF, sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, claiming that the defendants, through the passage of an ordinance prohibiting the solicitation of labor from the town's streets and sidewalks, unlawfully prohibited speech related to employment and had a discriminatory animus against predominately Latino immigrant day laborers.
In September 2009, the Town Board enacted the ordinance in question. It prohibited any person from standing on a street corner stopping or attempting to stop a passing car for employment-related purposes. It also prohibited drivers from stopping their cars for the same purposes. The proposed purpose of the ordinance was to promote the health, safety, and welfare of motorists and pedestrians on the streets of the town. However, the supervisor referenced the ordinance as a temporary solution to dealing with those who were not on the path to citizenship. Comments from the public showed that town residents feared groups of men unfamiliar to them standing on the streets. There was also proof of animosity towards immigrant day laborers, such as town residents saying the day laborers were unsightly, illegal, and not wanted in that town.
Plaintiffs argued that since New York laws already addressed health and safety concerns on the streets, this animus against predominantly Latino immigrant day laborers was what actually motivated the passing of the ordinance and that this violated the First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. They also argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of the ordinance, day laborers had suffered a significant loss of wages and harassment from police officers and people driving by them.
Two days after the complaint was filed, on May 20, 2010, the District Court (Judge Denis Reagan Hurley) granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order preventing the town from enforcing the ordinance at issue. Then, on June 1, 2010, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance at issue, pending final resolution of the First Amendment claims. In response to this order, the defendants filed a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2010. The case was argued in the Second Circuit under the docket number 10-2505-cv. Little docket activity occurred until May 17, 2011, when the Second Circuit (Judges Barrington D. Parker, Gerard E. Lynch, and Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.) affirmed the District Court's order converting the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings.
After a few months of discovery, on September 29, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The parties continued through the discovery process. On March 30, 2012, the District Court (Magistrate Judge Arlene Rosario Lindsay) granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order to withhold from discovery certain privileged documents: The identification documents and/or immigration status of the individual day laborers known to the plaintiffs. The parties then continued to go through more discovery litigation.
On June 18, 2013, the District Court (Judge Hurley) affirmed Magistrate Judge Lindsay's protective order, allowing plaintiffs to withhold privileged documents in the discovery process. Additionally, the District Court rejected the defendants' arguments that the plaintiffs lacked standing in this case, dismissing the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. 954 F.Supp.2d 127.
On December 1, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment to permanently prevent the ordinance from ever taking effect, as it was unconstitutional. In the almost two-year interim, a similar court case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert was decided by the Supreme Court on June 18, 2015, which provided a rationale to dismiss this case as unconstitutional under the First Amendment and permanently enjoin the ordinance. On September 3, 2015, the District Court (Judge Hurley) cited this case as part of its rationale and issued a judgment that enjoined the ordinance permanently and declared the ordinance unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Because the District Court found that the ordinance did not withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment, it did not address the plaintiffs' due process or Equal Protection claims in its judgment. 128 F.Supp.3d 597.
On September 15, 2015, the defendants appealed the District Court's decision to enjoin the ordinance. The appeal continued in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals under the docket number 15-2914-cv. During this appeal, the defendants also argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring this case. On August 22, 2017, the Second Circuit (Judges Dennis Jacobs, Barrington D. Parker, and Jane A. Restani) affirmed the District Court's ruling enjoining the ordinance. The Second Circuit found that the District Court did not err in finding the ordinance unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that the plaintiffs indeed had standing to bring suit against the defendants.868 F.3d 104.
In the fall of 2018, the final stages of litigation began to determine how much defendants would pay to plaintiffs in attorney's fees and costs. In July of 2019, the Court ordered that defendants pay $1,505,806 to the plaintiffs' attorneys. On November 25th of that year, a satisfaction of the judgment was entered and the case was closed.
Summary Authors
Perry Miska (3/24/2014)
Caitlin Hatakeyama (10/19/2018)
Jack Hibbard (6/8/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5665155/parties/centro-de-la-comunidad-hispana-de-locust-valley-v-town-of-oyster-bay/
Anello, Farrin R (New York)
Eisenberg, Arthur (New York)
Fredrickson, Samantha (New York)
Gelernt, Lee (New York)
Harrist, Erin Beth (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5665155/centro-de-la-comunidad-hispana-de-locust-valley-v-town-of-oyster-bay/
Last updated April 19, 2024, 3:01 a.m.
State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 18, 2010
Closing Date: Nov. 25, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are two organizations on behalf of immigrant workers and day laborers, who, because of the Town of Oyster Bay Ordinance, are prohibited from soliciting work on streets and sidewalks allegedly because of their race and national origin.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $1,505,806
Order Duration: 2015 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border:
Temporary foreign workers program
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: