HUNTINGTON PARK — Despite an out-of-court settlement, two judges have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate an appeals court decision that deemed discriminatory a 1984 rule requiring Southeast Municipal Court employees to speak English during office conversations.
In addition, Southeast Municipal Court Judges Porter deDubovay and Russell L. Schooling have asked the high court to review the case if it does not vacate the appellate court ruling.
"It's a matter of principle and vindication. . . . " one of the judges' lawyers, Larry J. Roberts, said Tuesday. "The judges want to establish what they did was proper."
DeDubovay declined to comment on the specifics of the case, but said, "We think the Supreme Court should have a chance . . . to rule in the case."
Schooling declined comment. A third Southeast Municipal Court judge involved in the original case, John W. Bunnett, did not participate in the petition to the Supreme Court. Bunnett also declined to comment.
Suit Challenged Rule
Alva Gutierrez, 33, a former court clerk who is bilingual, filed suit in 1985 challenging the "English-only " rule as discriminatory. Later that year, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the rule. The judges appealed.
In January 1988, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, finding there was evidence that the rule "contributed to a workplace atmosphere that derogates Hispanics, encourages discriminatory behavior by non-Hispanic supervisory and non-supervisory employees, and heightens racial animosity." The appeals court decision also kept alive a suit seeking damages against the judges.
Last month, the county and Gutierrez reached a settlement, and U.S. District Court Judge Richard A. Gadbois Jr. dismissed the case. Gutierrez received $85,000 under the settlement.
"They (the judges) don't want the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit opinion to be the law of the land," said lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents Gutierrez. "The decision is as complete victory for us. We're asking that (the judges') arguments be rejected."
Assistant County Counsel Frederick R. Bennett also attacked the decision to petition the Supreme Court. At the time of the settlement, the county had paid more than $239,000 to lawyers representing the judges. Bennett said the judges will now have to pay their own legal bills associated with the petition. Bennett called the judges' action "chasing after windmills."
