Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02128/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02128-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local

3190, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2128-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

This is an action to enjoin the County of Maricopa and Maricopa County Manager

David Smith from enforcing two written policies that govern the way in which third parties

may engage in “solicitation” of County employees and post information on employee bulletin

boards located in County facilities. The Complaint in this matter was filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 for alleged deprivations of Plaintiff’s rights secured by the First

and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶41-47.)

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3190’s (“Local 3190”) Application for Preliminary

Injunction (Dkt. 2) and Defendants Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ (the “Board”),

Maricopa County’s (the “County”), Maricopa County Manager David Smith’s (“Smith”), and

Maricopa County Supervisors, Fulton Brock’s, Don Stapley’s, Andrew Kunasek’s, and Max

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1 The merits of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Local 3190’s Complaint will be

addressed in a separate Order.

 2 In addition to the solicitation and posting policies, the Local 3190 originally

challenged a May 17, 2006 Resolution that eliminated certain employee payroll deductions. See

dkt. 2 at 4-12. On February 2, 2007, the parties notified the Court that this issue has been

settled. See Dkt. 41. Therefore, the constitutionality of the May 17 Resolution is no longer

before the Court. At oral argument, counsel for Local 3190 reiterated that the dues check-off

issue is now moot and the remaining claims are only directed at the County of Maricopa and

County Manager Smith. Based on these representations, Counts I, II, and V of Local 3190’s

Complaint will be dismissed, in addition to the following Defendants: the Maricopa County

Board of Supervisors, Fulton Brock, Don Stapley, Andrew Kunasek, and Max W. Wilson. 

 3 Defendants presented no evidence in opposition to Local 3190’s Application for

Preliminary Injunction.

- 2 -

Wilson’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Complaint.1

(Dkt. 21.)

Local 3190 now challenges actions engaged in by only the County and Smith

(collectively, “Defendants”). Specifically, the implementation and enforcement of two

written policies that regulate “solicitation” and “posting of general notices” in County

facilities.2

 At the hearing, counsel for Local 3190 clarified its request for a preliminary

injunction: Local 3190 seeks an injunction to enjoin and restrain “Defendants, their officers,

representatives, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and all persons acting in concert or

participation with Defendants” from enforcing the County’s solicitation and posting policies

against Local 3190. In the alternative, Local 3190 seeks an injunction requiring Defendants

to amend the County’s solicitation and posting policies. 

After considering the parties’ briefs, evidence presented by Local 31903

 in the form

of declarations and exhibits, and the arguments of counsel at the Preliminary Injunction

Hearing held on February 15, 2007, the Court now issues the following ruling on Local

3190’s Application for Preliminary Injunction.

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties

1. Local 3190 is a private, voluntary, nonprofit labor organization affiliated with the

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO

International Union (“AFSCME International”), which is the largest labor

organization representing public employees in the United States. 

2. Local 3190 works closely with Public Employees AFSCME Council 97, AFL-CIO

(“Council 97”), which is a voluntary, nonprofit labor organization representing state,

county and municipal employees throughout the State of Arizona. (Dkt. 6, ¶8.)

3. AFSCME International, Council 97, and Local 3190 organize and work for social and

economic justice in the workplace through political action and legislative advocacy.

(Dkt. 8, ¶8.)

4. The officers and representatives of Local 3190 frequently meet with supervisory or

management employees of the County to discuss wages, hours, and other terms and

conditions of employment including, health and safety, employee discipline,

grievances, hiring, promotions, demotions, transfers, and work assignments on behalf

of both members of Local 3190 and many of the County’s non-supervisory

employees. (Id.) 

5. Each of Local 3190, Council 97, and AFSCME International are labor organizations

within the meaning of A.R.S. § 23-1301.

6. Local 3190 encourages all eligible County employees to become members of Local

3190 and to support Local 3190’s and its affiliates’ political action committee, the

“PEOPLE Fund.” (Dkt. 6, ¶10.)

7. One reason Local 3190’s members are politically active is because the hours, wages

and working conditions of public employees are generally established through the

political process. (Dkt. 6, ¶¶8-12.)

8. The County of Maricopa is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona. 

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

9. Defendant David Smith is the County Manager for Maricopa County, duly appointed

and acting as agent for the Board of Supervisors regarding administration and

enforcement of various resolutions of the Board of Supervisors and County policies

and procedures, including the solicitation and posting policies challenged by Local

3190 in the present case.

Local 3190’s Requests for Access to County Facilities

10. In a July 7, 2004 letter, Local 3190 requested permission to access any “County

Facility Break Room and/or Lunch Room, for the purpose of handing out

informational flyers” (“Break Room Forum”). (Dkt. 8, Ex. 10.) On August 13, 2004,

County Manager Smith denied the request by stating, it “will be inappropriate to

provide your organization special access to our county lunch & break rooms.” (Id.)

11. On March 9, 2006, Local 3190 requested permission for “immediate access to

employee mailboxes so that we may in turn place flyers and membership applications

in them.” (Id.) Local 3190’s letter stated that, on March 3, 2006, the Arizona

Probation Officer Association (“AZPOA”) placed flyers in employee mailboxes for

its picnic and “left flyers in employee mailboxes that on the back of the flyer had a

membership application.” (Id.) 

12. Representatives of Local 3190 have made numerous written and verbal requests of the

County to be provided access to County property, including bulletin boards, employee

assigned mailboxes, the Employee Benefits Fair, lunch rooms, break rooms, employee

lounges, meeting areas, employee paychecks, employee paycheck envelopes, and

other locations where non-work related information and advertisements are displayed

(collectively, “County Property”), in order to post, distribute, and make available to

interested County employees information about AFSCME International, Council 97,

and Local 3190. (Dkt. 6, ¶32.) 

13. Representatives of Local 3190 have made numerous written and verbal requests of the

County to be provided access to County Property to post, distribute, and make

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 4 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 5 -

available to interested County employees information about how to become members

of Local 3190. (Id.)

14. Despite numerous written and verbal requests, the County has continuously denied

or refused to respond to Local 3190’s requests to be provided access to County

Property for purposes of communicating Local 3190’s mission, purpose, and

membership options to interested County employees. (Id., ¶33.) 

The County’s Written Solicitation and Posting Policies

15. The County has two written policies, Policy & Procedure No. A1502 and Policy &

Procedure No. A1917 (the “Policies”), that purport to regulate “solicitation” “during

working hours, in working areas, in all County buildings, facilities and grounds” and

the “posting of general notices” on “all County facilities.” Dkt. 8, Ex. 6. 

16. County Policy A1502 regulates solicitation and provides, in pertinent part:

A. Purpose

To provide a system in which to monitor and control the level

and type of solicitation that is directed toward county

employees to reduce negative impacts and conflicts of interest.

B. Policy

Soliciting among County employees for any purpose is

prohibited during working hours, in working areas, in all

County buildings, facilities and grounds. This applies to all

solicitations, selling or peddling, and distribution of

sales/informational material or propaganda of every nature

whether by County employees or other persons not in the

employ of the County, unless prior authorization by the County

Manager’s office or an authorized designee has been obtained.

Solicitors who have not received permission to distribute

informational material, including pamphlets, brochures,

bulletins, or any other type of material, are restricted to public

places such as sidewalks or parking lots or other facilities that

are available for public use. Solicitors may not place material

in employee lounges/break rooms, the cafeteria, or any work

area.

C. Definitions

Soliciting: to make petition to; to approach with a request or

plea; to urge to support one’s cause.

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 6 -

D. Authority and Responsibility

All County employees are responsible for ensuring that

soliciting activities, as described in the policy, do not interfere

with the normal and effective completion of work assigned. If

persons outside of the County employ are engaged in

unauthorized solicitation, then it is the responsibility of

management personnel to advise the solicitor of the procedure

for obtaining authorization prior to distributing material or

contacting County employees and that they should either

terminate their activities or remove themselves from County

premises. If the solicitor continues such activities, the manager

in charge should notify County security.

The County Manager is authorized to approve items of

solicitation to all county employees. This authority may be

delegated to Department Directors as deemed appropriate.

E. Procedures

Anyone having an item of interest to other employees may

request permission from the County Manager’s Office or the

Department Director (whichever is applicable) for approval to

post/distribute information or contact County employees.

1. The request to solicit should be made 5 days prior to

expected posting or distribution of material or contact with

employees.

2. The County Manager or Department Director will review all

solicitation information and materials.

3. If the County Manager or Department Director denies the

request for solicitation, the requestor will be notified that the

items will not be distributed nor may County employees be

approached.

4. If the request is approved, the requestor may distribute or

post materials in specified locations or arrange meetings with

County employees in accordance with the County Manager’s

or Department Director’s Instructions.

5. Additionally, custodial personnel will be alert for

unauthorized solicitation materials and will discard them

immediately.

6. Repeated violations of this policy should be reported to the

County Manager.

Dkt. 8, Ex. 6, County Policy A1502 (“Solicitation Policy”), emphasis added. 

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 6 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 7 -

17. County Policy A1917 regulates posting and provides, in pertinent part:

A. Purpose

To restrict indiscriminate posting of notices on County

property while ensuring that County employees have an

opportunity to view authorized general information

notices/flyers.

B. Policy

The County Manager’s Office has authorized “employee”

bulletin boards to be hung at various, designated locations in

County facilities to provide centralized locations for posting

approved notices. The bulletin boards are to be used for the

sole purpose of posting ‘authorized’ information such as

general notices of interest, value, or help to County employees. Only those documents which have been approved by the

County Manager or the manager responsible for the

facility/location are authorized to be displayed. Documents that

have not been approved or are not posted on a bulletin board

(e.g. on walls, elevators, etc.) are subject to removal. Notices

shall not remain on the bulletin board for a period of more than

two weeks unless the approving authority grants an extension.

A discard date should be noted on the document. 

This policy encompasses all County facilities, both inside and

outside. This policy does not apply to official public notices.

C. Authority and Responsibility

The County Manager or facility/location manager are solely

authorized to approve the posting of notices on County bulletin

boards.

The facility/location managers should designate an employee

to maintain respective bulletin boards and be responsible for

posting and discarding notices on a weekly basis.

D. Procedures

1. Notice(s) for County-wide distribution should be delivered

to the County Manager’s office or the facility/location

manager’s office five days prior to anticipated posting date of

notice(s). Notices that are specific to a department, division, or

work location should be submitted to the appropriate manager

in charge.

2. Upon submission the notice will be reviewed for

appropriateness and employee or citizen benefit and a

determination will be made if posting will be allowed.

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 7 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 8 -

3. If authorization is denied, then the notices may not be posted

on the bulletin board nor on any other structure. A designated

employee will notify the denied party. If authorization is

granted, then the notice(s) will be initialed by the approving

authority and the expiration date clearly visible. A designated

employee will then post the notices. 

4. Additionally, custodial personnel will remove all notices

from non-designated areas and will inspect all areas of the

buildings regularly to ensure that unauthorized notices are

removed.

5. Repeated violations of this policy should be reported to the

County Manager or the appropriate facility/location manager.

Dkt. 8, Ex. 6, County Policy A1917 (“Posting Policy”), emphasis added. 

18. Solicitors who do not receive permission to distribute informational material are

permitted to engage in solicitation in “public places,” such as “sidewalks or parking

lots or other facilities that are available for public use.” (Dkt. 8, Ex. 6 at A1502,B.)

19. Local 3190 has not alleged, nor does it contend, that Defendants have interfered with

its attempts to engage in solicitation in any of these “public places.”

 The County’s Practices

Materials Posted on Employee Bulletin Boards (“Bulletin Board Forum”) 

20. Maricopa County has a number of buildings where County employees regularly

report or are assigned in the normal course of their job duties. Many of these

buildings have entry ways and common areas open to the public. Two such

buildings, the Maricopa County Superior Courthouse (the “Courthouse”) and

adjacent Maricopa County Office Building (the “Office”), are located on West

Jefferson Street in downtown Phoenix, Arizona. (Dkt. 6, ¶28; Dkt. 8, ¶28.)

21. The hallways and common areas of County buildings are generally open to the public

and, like virtually all other County buildings, have lunch rooms, break rooms,

cafeterias, rest areas, employee lounges, bulletin boards, or some combination

thereof. (Dkt. 6, ¶28; Dkt. 8, ¶28.)

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 8 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 9 -

22. Local 3190 has presented evidence that third parties have posted advertisements,

solicitations, and brochures on or adjacent to at least one bulletin board, located in

the employee lunch room at the Southeast Court facility in Mesa, Arizona. (Dkt. 8,

¶29.) Some organizations, such as the Hard Rock Café, Top Spoke Motorcycle

Rentals, The Wax Museum at Fisherman’s Wharf, a vacation company

(www.alladream.com), Disneyland, and the Boyce Thompson Arboretum have

posted flyers promoting purely recreational activities. (Id., Ex. 8.) Others have posted

materials related to charities, including the United Way. Other organizations have

posted advertisements for services, such as Steve’s Mobile Auto Repair, Main Street

Financial, Nextel, Danny’s Car Wash, and Kayphil Sports and Fitness. Other

postings promote special services, including MariSol Federal Credit Union, Mariflex

Flexible Spending Accounts, Legal Connect, Sprint, United Pet Care, Equity

Residential, and Liberty Mutual. (Id.)

Intranet Connection to Employee Services Management (“Intranet Forum”)

23. County employees are given a user name and password to access the County intranet

website from regularly assigned or available computer workstations and from

personal computers in employees’ homes. (Dkt. 6, ¶28.)

24. The County’s intranet website provides a link under the heading “Employee Services

Management Association” (“ESMA”). (Id., ¶31.)

25. Local 3190 has presented evidence that the ESMA link on the County’s intranet

website connects to ESMA’s web page. ESMA’s web page contains information and

advertisements from third-parties about discounts available to County employees for

life and disability insurance, sporting and entertainment events, theme parks, airline

travel, cruises, automobiles, restaurants, and health and fitness. (Dkt. 8, ¶31, Ex. 9.)

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 9 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 10 -

Paycheck Envelopes and Paychecks (“Paycheck Forum”)

26. County employees are paid by checks that are either delivered in pay envelopes or

in assigned employee mailboxes. (Dkt. 6, ¶28; Dkt. 8, ¶28.)

27. Local 3190 has presented evidence that third parties have been permitted to solicit

County employees by distributing flyers in employee paycheck envelopes or attached

to employee paychecks. (Dkt. 8, ¶29.) Paycheck distributions include ads from

Disneyland, MariSol Credit Union, vacation travel, and blood drives. (Id.)

Employee Mailboxes (“Mailbox Forum”)

28. County employees are assigned mailboxes. (Dkt. 6, ¶28). 

29. Local 3190 has presented evidence that the AZPOA has been permitted to solicit

County employees by distributing flyers for an AZPOA picnic and AZPOA

membership applications in County employee mailboxes. See Dkt. 8, Ex. 10.

The Employee Benefits Fair (“Benefits Fair Forum”)

30. Local 3190 has presented evidence that the County periodically hosts an “Employee

Benefits Fair” to inform employees of the wide range of benefits available to them.

31. The Employee Benefits Fair is held during working hours on County property at

various locations. (Dkt. 6, ¶30; Dkt. 8, ¶30.)

32. At the Employee Benefits Fair, third party vendors are permitted to distribute

information promoting their services, including dental, vision, health, and life

insurance. (Dkt. 8, ¶30.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Ripeness

Defendants contend Local 3190’s allegation that the County has applied the Posting

Policy in a discriminatory manner is not ripe because Local 3190 “has not identified a single

bulletin board that is open to the public or employees at large for posting material.” (Dkt.

20 at 13.) Moreover, because Local 3190 “has offered no evidence that the County has

forbidden it from posting anything on [such a bulletin board], or that anything the Union has

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 10 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 11 -

posted on it has been removed by the County,” Defendants urge the Court to avoid Local

3190’s claim that they have enforced the Posting Policy in a discriminatory manner. (Id.)

The Court rejects Defendants’ ripeness argument. Local 3190 presented evidence

that Defendants have repeatedly refused its written and verbal requests to access County

Property in order to distribute and post information about the benefits of membership in

Local 3190. See Dkt. 6, ¶¶27, 32-33; Dkt. 8, ¶¶27, 32-33, Ex. 10. Thus, this issue is ripe.

B. Preliminary Injunction Standard

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo among the

parties pending a final decision on the merits of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Chalk

v. U.S. Dist. Court, 840 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 1988); Regents of the University of

California v. ABC, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 514 (9th Cir. 1984). Therefore, findings of fact and

conclusions of law made in connection with a preliminary injunction are not binding

adjudications. The court may come to opposite conclusions at the trial on the merits. See

University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). Although Rule 65 establishes

the procedural requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction, the substantive

requirements for injunctions are defined by applicable federal case law and statutes. 

Courts in the Ninth Circuit have adopted an “alternative standard” for granting a

preliminary injunction under which the moving party can meet its burden by demonstrating

either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable

harm if relief is not granted, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits of

the case and a balance of hardships that tips sharply in the movant’s favor. International

Jensen v. Metrosound U.S.A., 4 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 1993). These two formulations “are

not separate tests but the outer reaches of ‘a single continuum.’” Regents of Univ. of Cal.,

747 F.2d at 515 (citation omitted). 

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 11 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 12 -

C. Reasonable Probability of Success on the Merits

1. First Amendment

The First Amendment applies not only to legislative enactments, but also to less

formal governmental acts, such as the County Policies and practices at issue here. See Faith

Center Church Evangelistic Ministries v. Glover, 462 F.3d 1194, 1200-02 (9th Cir. 2006)

(applying First Amendment analysis to County’s library meeting policy prohibiting access

for “religious purposes”). Neither party disputes that solicitation and posting information

constitute forms of speech protected by the First Amendment. See Village of Schaumburg

v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 633 (1980); Giebel v. Sylvester, 244

F.3d 1182, 1186-87 (9th Cir. 2001). However, it is well-settled that “the government need

not permit all forms of speech on property that it owns and controls.” Int’l Soc’y for

Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678 (1992) (“ISKCON”). Rather, “[t]he

existence of a right of access to public property and the standard by which limitations upon

such a right must be evaluated differ depending on the character of the property at issue.”

Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 44 (1983). The Supreme

Court “has adopted a forum analysis as a means of determining when the Government’s

interest in limiting the use of its property to its intended purpose outweighs the interest of

those wishing to use the property for other purposes.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. &

Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985). Thus, the Court will set forth this forum

analysis and the principles applicable to the six fora at issue here.

Forum Analysis

The Supreme Court has recognized several types of forums. The first is the

traditional public forum: “places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been

devoted to assembly and debate,” such as streets and parks. Perry, 460 U.S. at 45. In a

traditional public forum, “the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply

circumscribed”; the state may only enact content-neutral “time, place, and manner”

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 12 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 13 -

restrictions or content-based rules that are “necessary to serve a compelling state interest”

and “narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” Id.

A second type of forum – the non-public forum – consists of “[p]ublic property

which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication.” Id. at 46. To

maintain a non-public forum, the government must employ “selective access” policies,

whereby forum participation is governed by “individual, non-ministerial judgments.” Ark.

Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 680 (1998) (Forbes); see also Cornelius,

473 U.S. at 804. The government may be more restrictive in its regulation of speech in a

non-public forum than in a traditional public one. The government may “reserve the [nonpublic] forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the

regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because

public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” Perry, 460 U.S. at 46.

A third category lies in between, and is a hybrid of, the other two forums. This type

of forum is “created by government designation of a place or channel of communication for

use by the public at large for assembly and speech, for use by certain speakers, or for the

discussion of certain subjects.” Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802. The forum may be of either “a

limited or unlimited character.” ISKCON, 505 U.S. at 678. The government cannot create

such a forum “by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally

opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse.” Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802. The

Supreme Court has sometimes referred to these intermediate forums as “designated public”

forums, see, e.g., United States v. Am. Library Ass’n, Inc., 539 U.S. 194, 206 (2003);

Forbes, 523 U.S. at 677-79; Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508

U.S. 384, 392 (1993); ISKCON, 505 U.S. at 678, but at other times the Court has used the

phrase “limited public” forums to describe this category, see, e.g., Am. Library Ass’n, 539

U.S. at 206; Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98, 105-06 (2001); Santa

Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 303-04 (2000); Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 804, 811;

Perry, 460 U.S. at 47-48.

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 13 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 14 -

Although the Supreme Court has never squarely addressed the difference between

a designated public forum and a limited public forum, its most recent opinions suggest that

there indeed is a distinction. In a limited public forum, the government creates a channel

for a specific or limited type of expression where one did not previously exist. In such a

forum, “the State may be justified ‘in reserving [its forum] for certain groups or for the

discussion of certain topics,’”subject only to the limitation that its actions must be viewpoint

neutral and reasonable. Good News Club, 533 U.S. at 106-07 (citation omitted). In a

designated public forum, by contrast, the government makes public property (that would not

otherwise qualify as a traditional public forum) generally accessible to all speakers. In such

a forum, regulations on speech are “subject to the same limitations as that governing a

traditional public forum” – namely, strict scrutiny. ISKCON, 505 U.S. at 678. The Ninth

Circuit has also held that a limited public forum, a forum opened only to certain speakers

or for discussion of certain subjects, is in fact a subset of the larger category of designated

public forums intentionally opened by the government for “public discourse.” See Hopper

v. City of Pasco, 241 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001).

To summarize, in a traditional public forum the government may only establish

content-neutral “time, place, and manner” restrictions or content-based rules that are

“necessary to achieve a compelling state interest” and are “narrowly drawn to achieve that

interest.” Perry, 460 U.S. at 45. A designated public forum is “subject to the same

limitations as that governing a traditional public forum.” ISKCON, 505 U.S. at 678. In a

limited public forum, however, the government may restrict access to “certain groups” or

to “discussion of certain topics,” subject to two limitations: the government restrictions

must be both “reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum,” and viewpoint

neutral. Good News Club, 533 U.S. at 106-07. Finally, in a non-public forum the

government may employ a “selective access” policy in which “individual non-ministerial

judgments” govern forum participation, again subject to the same two limitations: the

policy must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Forbes, 523 U.S. at 680; see also Perry,

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 14 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 15 -

460 U.S. at 46. Thus, while the Constitution imposes more severe restrictions on

government regulation of private speech in traditional and designated public fora than in

limited public fora and non-public fora, even in the last two categories government

restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

Type of Forum Created

The primary test for determining the relevant forum is defined by “the access sought

by the speaker.” Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 801. In the present case, Local 3190 seeks access

to six forums: (i) County facility lunch and break rooms in order to distribute “informational

flyers,” the Break Room Forum (supra at 4, ¶10); (ii) employee bulletin boards, the Bulletin

Board Forum (supra at 8-9, ¶¶20-22); (iii) the County’s Intranet page, the Intranet Forum

(supra at 9, ¶¶23-25); (iv) County employee paycheck envelopes and paychecks, the

Paycheck Forum (supra at 10, ¶¶26-27); (v) County employee assigned mailboxes, the

Mailbox Forum (supra at 10, ¶¶28-29); and (vi) the Employee Benefits Fair, the Benefits

Fair Forum (supra at 10, ¶¶30-32). 

None of the Six Fora are Public Forums

In the present case, Local 3190 has presented no evidence that any of the six fora

have “traditionally been available for public expression.” ISKCON, 505 U.S. at 678. Local

3190 appears to contend the fora at issue here are traditional public forums because many

County buildings “have entry ways and common areas open to the public” and “are

generally open to the public.” (Dkt. 2 at 9.) This argument is not persuasive.

“The mere physical characteristics of the property cannot dictate forum analysis.”

United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 727 (1990) (holding, the sidewalk leading to the

entry of the post office is not the traditional public forum open to expressive activity); see

also Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 835-37 (1976) (holding, even though a military base

permitted free civilian access to certain unrestricted areas, the base was a non-public forum);

Forbes, 523 U.S. at 678 (“reject[ing] the view that traditional public forum status extends

beyond its historic confines”). Like the post office at issue in Kokinda, there is no evidence

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 15 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 16 -

that the County has ever expressly dedicated its facilities’ entry ways or common access

areas to any type of expressive activity. See Kokinda, 497 U.S. at 730. Moreover, “[t]he

government does not create a public forum by . . . permitting limited discourse, but only by

intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse.” Cornelius, 473 U.S. at

802; see also Perry, 460 U.S. at 47 (“[S]elective access does not transform government

property into a public forum”). Thus, none of the six fora are traditional public forums. 

None of the Six Fora are Designated Public Forums

The difficult question is whether the County has established designated public fora,

limited public fora, or non-public fora. As noted, a designated public forum exists where

the government “intentionally open[s] a nontraditional forum for public discourse.”

Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802. In addressing this question, the Court must consider (1) “the

policy and practice of the government to ascertain whether it intended to designate a place

not traditionally open to assembly and debate as a public forum” and (2) the nature of the

property at issue and its compatibility with expressive activity. Id. at 802-04. The Court’s

consideration of the nature of the property at issue depends upon whether “the principal

function of the property would be disrupted by expressive activity.” Id. at 804. In

determining whether the County intended to create a designated or limited public forum with

respect to any of the six fora at issue here, the Court also considers the practice of the

government because there are situations where the government creates a designated pubic

forum by failing to enforce the restrictions it has placed on the use of the forum. See Giebel,

244 F.3d at 1188; Hooper, 241 F.3d at 1075-77. Limited public forum status may be lost

where policy restrictions, in practice, are not enforced, or “if exceptions are haphazardly

permitted.” Hopper, 241 F.3d at 1076. 

None of the fora at issue here fit the description of a “designated public forum,”

because no evidence demonstrates that the County intended, by policy or practice, to make

any of the six fora generally accessible to all speakers or “public discourse.” See ISKCON,

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 16 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 17 -

505 U.S. at 678-79 (in a designated public forum, the government makes public property

generally accessible to all speakers); Hopper, 241 F.3d at 1074 (“public discourse”). 

Three Fora are Limited Public Forums

Bulletin Board, Mailbox, and Paycheck Fora

Under the Policies, “solicitation” includes posting, distribution of material, and

contact with employees. See Dkt. 8, Ex. 6 at A1502, E(1),(3)-(4). Local 3190 has presented

evidence that, pursuant to both the Solicitation and Posting Policies, the AZPOA has been

permitted access to the Mailbox Forum to distribute information, several third parties have

been permitted access to the Paycheck Forum to distribute information, and many third

parties have been permitted access to the Bulletin Board Forum to post notices. See Dkt.

8, ¶29 and Exs.8, 10. The County has not submitted any evidence to contradict Local

3190’s evidence in this regard. Thus, the Court will analyze these Fora and the Policies

together.

With respect to the Bulletin Board, Mailbox, and Paycheck Fora, the County’s

Solicitation and Posting Policies clearly state that solicitation and posting are not permitted

unless they have been approved by the County Manager, the County Manager’s Office, or

the facility/location manager. See Dkt. 8, Ex. 6 at A1917, B; A1502, B, E. In addition, to

receive approval for solicitation and distribution, material must be “an item of interest to

other employees”; to receive approval for posting, material must be a “general notice[] of

interest, value, or help to County employees” that is “appropriate” and will “benefit”

employees or citizens. See id. at A1502, E; A1917, B,D(2). Although not dispositive, the

Posting and Solicitation Policies, which limit the content of material that may be posted,

distributed, or used to solicit employees in work areas during work hours, demonstrate the

County’s intent to create a limited public forum closed to subjects that are not “of interest,

value, or help” to County employees. See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 805 (“The decision of the

Government to limit access to the [forum] is not dispositive in itself; instead, it is relevant

for what it suggests about the Government’s intent in creating the forum.”); cf. Christ’s

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 17 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 18 -

Bride Ministries, Inc. v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 148 F.3d 242, 252 (3d

Cir. 1998) (city’s practice of permitting “virtually unlimited access” to forum and excluding

“only a very narrow category of ads” created designated public forum). By limiting access

to County facilities in this manner, the County’s Solicitation and Posting Policies do not

render the County’s Bulletin Board, Mailbox, and Paycheck Fora generally accessible to all

speakers. Moreover, Local 3190 has presented no evidence to show that County officials

have not consistently enforced either Policy. See Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix,

154 F.3d 972, 976 (1998) (no public forum when city “consistently restricted political and

religious advertising” on buses).

The County’s Bulletin Board, Mailbox, and Paycheck Fora are not designated public

fora for the additional reason that the County “is acting as a proprietor, managing its internal

operations, rather than acting as lawmaker with the power to regulate or license.” ISKCON,

505 U.S. at 678; Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 804 (the court should determine whether “the

principal function of the property would be disrupted by expressive activity”). As the Ninth

Circuit has stated, “where the government acts in a proprietary capacity . . . to facilitate the

conduct of its internal business, the Supreme Court generally has found a nonpublic forum,

subject only to the requirements of reasonableness and viewpoint neutrality.” DiLoreto v.

Downey Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 196 F.3d 958, 966 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, it cannot

reasonably be disputed that the County maintains employee bulletin boards and mailboxes

for the purpose of communicating with its employees. Likewise, employee paychecks are

obviously necessary for the County to facilitate and conduct its internal business. Moreover,

the County’s written Policies demonstrate its intent to provide limited access to facilities and

employees “during working hours, in working areas, and in all County buildings, facilities,

and grounds” (see Dkt. 8, Ex. 6 at A1502, B). Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 805-06 (“[T]he

Government has the right to exercise control over access to the federal workplace in order

to avoid interruptions to the performance of the duties of its employees.”). Indeed, the

purpose of the Solicitation Policy – to “monitor and control the level and type of solicitation

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 18 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 19 -

that is directed toward county employees to reduce negative impacts and conflicts of

interest” (Dkt. 8, Ex. 6 at A1502, A) – demonstrates that, although the Policies are

compatible with limited types of expressive activity, none of the three Fora are intended to

undermine the County’s primary function as an employer.

The present case is similar to DiLoreto, where the Ninth Circuit held that a high

school baseball fence opened for commercial advertising was not intended to designate a

forum for unlimited expressive activity. 196 F.3d at 967. The DiLoreto Court emphasized

that, because the school district “excluded certain subjects from the advertising forum as

sensitive or too controversial,” the fence was a non-public forum open for a limited purpose.

Id. at 966-67; Hills v. Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist., 329 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2003)

(because school district screened submissions for suitability and frequently rejected flyers

for various reasons, “the District’s policies and practices indicate a lack of intent to

designate a forum for all expressive activity”). By restricting the Solicitation and Posting

Policies to topics of “interest, value or help” to County employees, the Policies “indicate a

lack of intent to designate a forum for all expressive activity.” Hills, 329 F.3d at 1049.

Moreover, Local 3190 has presented no evidence that the County permits certain entities to

engage in solicitation or posting without first obtaining permission under the Policies. Thus,

the County’s Policies create a limited public forum, and will be permissible if they are

viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the Fora. See Good

News Club, 533 U.S. at 106-07 (in a limited public forum, the government creates a channel

for a specific or limited type of expression where one did not previously exist). 

Non-public Fora

 Intranet Forum

With respect to the County’s Intranet Forum, Local 3190 has presented no evidence

that the general public or unlimited third parties are provided access to County employees

via the ESMA link. Instead, Local 3190’s evidence demonstrates that, if County employees

choose to do so, they may access ESMA’s web page from the County’s Intranet site. Supra

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 19 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 20 -

at 9, ¶¶24-25. Although ESMA’s web page displays information about discounts available

to County employees, there is no evidence that ESMA’s web page or the County’s Intranet

Forum provides links by which County employees can access other third parties’ websites.

Local 3190 has therefore failed to show that the purpose and structure of the County’s

Intranet Forum is to provide a forum of unlimited public expression or a forum for public

discourse. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the County has provided a link by which

County employees can access ESMA alone. 

The closed structure of the Intranet Forum indicates the County’s intent not to open

it to the general public, but instead to ESMA alone. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802-03

(government creates a designated public forum by intending to open the forum to public

discourse). Based on this “selective access” policy, the Court finds that the Intranet Forum

is a non-public forum. See Forbes, 523 U.S. at 680 (to create a non-public forum, the

government must employ “selective access” policies, whereby forum participation is

governed by “individual, non-ministerial judgments”). 

Break Room Forum

With respect to the Break Room Forum, the Solicitation Policy clearly provides that

“[s]olicitors may not place material in employee lounges/break rooms, the cafeteria, or any

work area.” Id., Ex. 6 at A1502, B. Because solicitation in the Break Room Forum is

prohibited, clearly the County did not intend to open those areas for expression by third

parties. See Desyllas v. Bernstine, 351 F.3d 934, 943 (9th Cir. 2003) (“areas that were not

approved for posting flyers also are not designated public fora because the university did not

intend to open them for expression, as manifested by the university’s Bulletin Board Posting

Policy”; “the campus areas not approved for handbill-posting are nonpublic fora”). Thus,

the Break Room Forum to which Local 3190 requested access is a non-public forum. Id.

The County’s Solicitation Policy, prohibiting solicitation in the Break Room Forum, is

permissible if “‘the limitation is reasonable and not based on the speaker’s viewpoint.’” See

Desyllas, 351 F.3d at 943 (citation omitted).

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 20 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 21 -

Insufficient Evidence to Categorize

Benefits Fair Forum

Neither party has submitted sufficient evidence for the Court to definitively

categorize the Benefits Fair Forum. Although Local 3190 generally describes the forum,

no evidence has been presented that the County maintains a written policy or a specific

practice with respect to allowing third parties to participate in the Benefits Fair. Local 3190

admits that the Benefits Fair is hosted by the County during normal working hours at

various locations on County property, but also contends third party vendors are permitted

to promote a variety of services and products, including dental, vision, health and life

insurance. (Dkt. 8, ¶30.) It appears that the Benefits Fair Forum is a non-public forum open

only to third parties with whom the County has contracted to provide health and other

benefits to County employees. Local 3190 readily admitted that it does not provide health

or insurance, and merely advocates for increased benefit packages. Because neither party

has submitted evidence of the County’s policy or practice with respect to the admission of

participants to the Benefits Fair, or a list of participants therein, the Court will not speculate

on whether the Benefits Fair Forum is a designated or limited public forum or a non-public

forum. See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 804 (government limited forum through consistent policy

of restricting participation to appropriate agencies and requiring permission). 

Summary

In sum, of the five fora that may be categorized here, the evidence shows that none

of them are traditional public forums or designated public forums. The five fora include

three limited public fora and two non-public fora. Thus, restrictions to access imposed by

the County are permissible if they “are viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the

purpose served by the forum.” Compare Hopper, 241 F.3d at 1074-75 (“In a limited public

forum, restrictions that are viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served

by the forum are permissible.”) (citing Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of

Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995)) With Desyllas, 351 F.3d at 943 ( “‘[t]he government

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 21 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 22 -

may limit expressive activity in nonpublic fora if the limitation is reasonable and not based

on the speaker’s viewpoint.’”) (citation omitted).

Application of Limited Public Fora Analysis

Local 3190 contends it has demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the

merits because Defendants have engaged in viewpoint discrimination. (Dkt. 2 at 23-24.)

With respect to the Bulletin Board, Mailbox, and Employee Paycheck Fora, access to which

is governed by either the Solicitation or Posting Policy, the Court agrees that Defendants

have engaged in viewpoint discrimination by excluding Local 3190. However, the Court

does not find that Defendants have engaged in viewpoint discrimination by excluding Local

3190 from the Intranet and Break Room Fora.

When the government establishes a limited public forum, it is not required to and

does not allow persons to engage in every type of speech. Instead, the government may be

justified “in reserving [its forum] for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics.”

Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829; see also Lamb’s Chapel, 508 U.S. at 392-393. The

government’s power to restrict speech, however, is not without limits. The restriction must

not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint, Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829, and

the restriction must be “reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum,” Cornelius,

473 U.S. at 806; Good News Club, 533 U.S. at 107. For example, where a group seeks to

speak on a “subject otherwise permissible” in a particular forum, but from a religious

standpoint, the government cannot constitutionally exclude the speech. See Lamb’s Chapel,

508 U.S. at 394 (school permitting organizations to speak about child rearing and families

in after-school forum could not prohibit group presenting films on same topics from

religious standpoint); Good News Club, 533 U.S. at 108-09 (forum permitting any group

promoting the “moral and character development of children,” could not restrict access to

Good News Club because they promoted same goals); Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 831 (“By

the very terms of the SAF prohibition, the University does not exclude religion as a subject

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 22 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 23 -

matter but selects for disfavored treatment those student journalistic efforts with religious

editorial viewpoints”). 

In Lamb’s Chapel, for example, the local New York school district issued rules and

regulations permitting “social, civic, or recreational uses” on school property when not in

use for school purposes, while prohibiting use by any group “for religious purposes.” 508

U.S. at 387. Citing this prohibition, the school district excluded a church that wanted to

present films teaching family values from a Christian perspective. Id. at 387-89. The

Supreme Court held that, because the films “no doubt dealt with a subject otherwise

permissible” under the rule, the teaching of family values, the district’s exclusion of the

church was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Id. at 394.

Similarly, in Rosenberger, a student organization at the University of Virginia was

denied funding for printing expenses because its publication, Wide Awake, offered a

Christian viewpoint that “‘challenge[d] Christians to live, in word and deed, according to

the faith they proclaim and . . . encourage[d] students to consider what a personal

relationship with Jesus Christ means.’” 515 U.S. at 822-26. The University did not

“exclude religion as a subject matter” but “select[ed] for disfavored treatment those student

journalistic efforts with religious editorial viewpoints.” Id. at 831. The Supreme Court

concluded simply that the university’s denial of funding to print Wide Awake was viewpoint

discrimination, just as the school district’s refusal to allow Lamb’s Chapel to show its films

was viewpoint discrimination. Id.

Bulletin Board Forum

In the present case, the County’s Posting Policy provides that information may be

posted if it is “of interest, value, or help to County employees,” so long as it is “appropriate”

and will “benefit” an “employee or citizen.” (Dkt. 8, Ex. 6 at A1917, B, D(2).) Local 3190

presented undisputed evidence that, among others, the list of entities permitted to post

information includes United Pet Care, whose flyer promotes a healthcare plan for pets that

could “interest,” benefit and “help” County employees who own pets. (Dkt. 8, Ex. 8.)

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 23 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 24 -

Local 3190 is an organization that, like United Pet Care, requested permission to post

information promoting the benefits of membership in its labor organization, which could

“interest,” benefit and “help” certain County employees. Notwithstanding Local 3190’s

request to post information on a permissible topic, however, the County refused Local 3190

access to the Bulletin Board Forum. Defendants have presented no evidence demonstrating

that Local 3190’s information would not benefit, help, or interest County employees, nor

did it submit evidence showing that such information was not appropriate. Indeed, the

County provided absolutely no evidence explaining why Local 3190 was denied access to

any of the six fora at issue here. Applying Lamb’s Chapel and Rosenberger, the Court

concludes that, because Local 3190 sought to post information on a subject otherwise

permissible under the terms of the Posting Policy, Defendants’ exclusion of Local 3190

from the Bulletin Board Forum was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. See Lamb’s

Chapel, 508 U.S. at 394; Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 831.

Mailbox and Paycheck Fora

For the same reasons, the Court finds that Defendants unconstitutionally denied Local

3190 access to the County’s Mailbox and Paycheck Fora. The County’s Solicitation Policy

provides that if an “item of interest to other employees” is approved, the requestor “may

distribute or post materials in specified locations or arrange meetings with County

employees in accordance with the County Manager’s or Director’s instructions.” (Dkt. 8,

Ex. 6 at A1502, E(4).) Local 3190 presented evidence that the AZPOA was provided access

to the Mailbox Forum to distribute its newsletter, flyers for a picnic, and membership

applications, and “www.getawaytoday,” a vacation company, was provided access to the

Paycheck Forum to distribute flyers advertising vacations. (Id., Exs. 7, 10.) As previously

explained, Local 3190 is an organization that, like the AZPOA and www.getawaytoday,

may “interest” certain County employees. Moreover, Local 3190 is a labor organization that

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 24 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 4 At argument, counsel for Defendants asserted that the AZPOA is distinguishable from

Local 3190 because probation officers are state employees and received permission to access

the Mailbox Forum from the State. Regardless of whether probation officers are state

employees, Defendants presented no evidence in opposition to Local 3190’s application for a

preliminary injunction. Thus, there is no basis in the record for the Court to find that the State

granted the AZPOA access to the County’s Mailbox Forum.

 5 Because the Court finds that exclusion of Local 3190 from the Bulletin Board,

Mailbox and Paycheck Fora was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, it will not address

whether the restrictions in the Policies are reasonable. See Good News Club, 533 U.S. at 107

n.2.

- 25 -

appears to be indistinguishable from the AZPOA.4

 Because Local 3190 sought access to the

Mailbox and Paycheck Fora to distribute information permitted under the terms of the

Solicitation Policy, and the County has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that

access to such fora was properly denied or that Local 3190’s information did not satisfy the

terms of the Solicitation Policy, the Court has no alternative but to find that Defendants’

exclusion of Local 3190 from the Mailbox and Paycheck Fora was unconstitutional

viewpoint discrimination. See Lamb’s Chapel, 508 U.S. at 394.5

Application of Non-Public Forum Analysis

Intranet Forum

Reasonableness

In a non-public forum, restrictions on access “can be based on subject matter and

speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose

served by the forum” and all the surrounding circumstances. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806;

see also Perry, 460 U.S. at 49 (“access policy [in non-public forum] based on the status of

the respective unions rather than their views” was constitutional). The “reasonableness”

analysis thus focuses on whether differential access is consistent with preserving the

property for the purpose to which it is dedicated. See Perry, 460 U.S. at 50-51. In Perry,

for example, the Supreme Court held that denying access to the school’s internal mail

system to unions other than the school’s official bargaining unit was reasonable given the

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 25 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 26 -

school’s purpose to use the mail system for communication of school business, and to

prevent the system from becoming a battlefield for competing unions. Id. at 51-52. In

Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974), the Supreme Court held that the

city’s decision to exclude political advertising from bus signs was reasonable given the

city’s desire to generate revenue and the potential for “lurking doubts about [political]

favoritism, and sticky administrative problems . . . in parceling out limited space to eager

politicians.” Lehman, 418 U.S. at 304 (plurality opinion); see also Children of the Rosary

v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A] review of the city’s standards

and practices indicates that the city has not opened a public forum [for ads on its bus

panels]. The city has consistently restricted political and religious advertising”). In

Kokinda, the Supreme Court held that prohibiting solicitation on postal property was

reasonable because the purpose of the forum (a sidewalk from the parking lot to the post

office) was to accomplish the most efficient postal delivery system. 497 U.S. at 727

(plurality opinion). Accordingly, the special nature and function of County facilities are

relevant to evaluating the limits the County has imposed on expressive activity via the two

non-public fora at issue here. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802 (although the forum was the

charitable drive itself, Court could consider the special nature and function of federal

workplace in evaluating access limits).

The Court concludes that the differential access provided to ESMA and Local 3190

with respect to the County’s Intranet Forum is reasonable because it is consistent with the

County’s “legitimate interest in ‘preserv[ing] the property . . . for the use to which it is

lawfully dedicated.’” Perry, 460 U.S. at 50-51 (citation omitted). Providing an Intranet link

to ESMA’s web page effectively allows “the County” to communicate with its employees

about discounts and other benefits provided to County employees. Likewise, the ESMA

link enables ESMA to fulfill its obligation to provide benefits to County employees. Id.

Although membership in Local 3190 is available “to any non-supervisory employee of

Maricopa County,” the option to join Local 3190 differs substantially from the benefits

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 26 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 27 -

ESMA is required to provide to County employees. (Dkt. 6, ¶6.) In contrast to the benefits

provided by ESMA, County employees can only become members of Local 3190 “by

completing and signing a Membership Application and Payroll Deduction Authorization

Card.” (Id., ¶7.) Because ESMA is officially responsible for providing benefits to County

employees, and Local 3190 does not occupy a similar position in the County’s employment

structure, denying Local 3190 access to the County’s Intranet Forum is reasonable. See

Perry, 460 U.S. at 51-52 (denying access to school’s internal mail system to unions other

than the school’s official bargaining unit was reasonable given the school’s purpose to use

the mail system for communication of school business); ISKCON, 505 U.S. at 689 (in

examining the compatibility between the prohibited speech and the particular forum, the

court looks to whether the restrictions on speech are reasonably related to maintaining the

environment that the government has deliberately created).

Viewpoint

 Nothing in the record indicates that Defendants refused to permit Local 3190 access

to the County’s Intranet Forum in order to discourage one viewpoint and encourage another.

Rather, based on ESMA’s official position in the operational structure of the County system,

the Court finds that ESMA “obtained a status that carried with it rights and obligations that

no other . . . organization [, including Local 3190,] could share.” Perry, 460 U.S. at 49 n.9.

No evidence has been presented that Local 3190 occupies a similar official position in the

structure of the County, nor that any organization other than ESMA has a webpage link on

the County’s Intranet Forum. By providing a web page link in its Intranet Forum to the

entity that is responsible for providing a service to its employees, the Court finds that the

County’s Intranet access policy is based solely on the speaker’s identity. See Perry, 460

U.S. at 49 (“Implicit in the concept of the nonpublic forum is the right to make distinctions

in access on the basis of subject matter and speaker identity. These distinctions may be

impermissible in a public forum but are inherent and inescapable in the process of limiting

a nonpublic forum to activities compatible with the intended purpose of the property.”);

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 27 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 28 -

DiLoreto, 196 F.3d at 969 (no viewpoint discrimination where class of speakers is

categorically excluded from limited public forum regardless of stand speaker takes on topic).

Thus, the Court finds that Defendants did not engage in viewpoint discrimination by

excluding Local 3190 from the Intranet Forum. 

Break Room Forum

Reasonable

The Court finds that Defendants’ rejection of Local 3190’s request to engage in

solicitation in the County’s Break Room Forum is “reasonable in light of the purpose served

by the forum,” because the Solicitation Policy is aimed at reducing negative impacts and

conflicts. See Dkt. 8, Ex. 6 at A1502, (A). An additional purpose of the Solicitation Policy

is to “monitor and control the level and type of solicitation that is directed toward County

employees.” (Id.) The ususal purpose of employee break rooms, lounges, and lunch rooms

is to allow employees to relax and refresh in a neutral environment. Thus, the Court finds

that denying access to the Break Room Forum to Local 3190 is consistent with the County’s

purposes of controlling the level and type of solicitation permitted and reducing negative

impacts and conflicts that could arise from solicitation efforts in a neutral environment. See

Desyllas, 351 F.3d at 944 (removing flyers from columns was reasonable because it was

consistent with university’s purpose to preserve the appearance of campus structures).

Viewpoint

No evidence has been presented to show that Defendants have permitted any entity

access to the Break Room Forum for the purpose of solicitation, nor that they have not

consistently denied access to all entities and individuals who seek access to such forum in

order to distribute information. (Dkt. 8, Ex. 10.) Moreover, there is no indication in the

record that the County rejected Local 3190’s request to access the Break Room Forum in

order to suppress Local 3190’s views. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants did not engage

in viewpoint discrimination by denying Local 3190 access to the Break Room Forum.

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 28 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 29 -

Conclusion on First Amendment

Based on the analysis above, the Court finds that Defendants unconstitutionally

refused to permit Local 3190 access to the County’s Bulletin Board, Mailbox, and Paycheck

Fora because the refusal was motivated by a desire to stifle Local 3190’s particular

perspective and viewpoint. Thus, Local 3190 has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits of its First Amendment claim with respect to the County’s Bulletin

Board, Mailbox, and Paycheck Fora. The Court further concludes that Local 3190 has not

demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claim

with respect to the County’s Intranet, Break Room, and Benefits Fair Fora.

2. Equal Protection

Local 3190 alleges that differential access provided to third parties constitutes

impermissible content discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to the Break Room Forum, Local 3190 has not

presented any evidence to show that the County provides access to other third parties. 

With respect to the Intranet Forum, the Court has rejected this assertion when cast as

a First Amendment claim, and it fares no better under the guise of an Equal Protection claim.

As explained above, Local 3190 did not have a First Amendment or other right of access to

the County’s Intranet Forum. Supra at 19-20. ESMA’s access to the Intranet Forum,

therefore, does not burden a fundamental right of Local 3190. As a result, Defendants’

decision to grant access to ESMA is not tested by the strict scrutiny applied when

government action impinges upon a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. See

San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 17 (1973). Defendants’ policy

denying access to Local 3190 need only rationally further a legitimate state purpose. That

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 29 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 6Because the Court has already concluded that the restrictions in the Bulletin Board,

Mailbox, and Paycheck Fora are unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment, it will not

address Local 3190’s Equal Protection claims with regard to such Fora.

- 30 -

purpose is clearly demonstrated by the special responsibility and official position ESMA

occupies in the County’s structure as an employer. See supra at 19-20.6

Similarly, because Local 3190 has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it

had a First Amendment or other right of access to the County’s Benefits Fair Forum,

Defendants’ denial of access to Local 3190 need only rationally further a legitimate state

purpose. From the evidence submitted by Local 3190, it appears that the County furthers

a legitimate state purpose by admitting only third parties with whom the County has

contracted to provide health and other benefits to County employees. See supra at 21. 

For these reasons, the Court concludes that Local 3190 has not demonstrated a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its Equal Protection claim with respect to

the County’s Intranet, Break Room, and Benefits Fair Fora.

D. Irreparable Injury

It is well-settled that a party seeking the deprivation of liberties protected by the First

Amendment constitute irreparable injury. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)

(plurality); Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 643 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he loss of

First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes

irreparable injury.”) (quoting Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373).

In the present case, Local 3190 has established the existence of irreparable injury

supporting the entry of injunctive relief with respect to the County’s Bulletin Board,

Mailbox, and Paycheck Fora, each of which is governed by the terms of the Solicitation and

Posting Policies. Thus, Local 3190 will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is denied

with respect to these three fora alone. 

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Perry, Defendants primarily contend

Local 3190 will not suffer irreparable harm because, as a matter of law under Perry, success

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 30 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 31 -

on the merits is unlikely. See Dkt. 20 at 11-13 (arguing that, as a matter of law, “employee

mail boxes, the intranet, the Employee Benefits Fair, and paycheck envelopes are not

designated public fora”). The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that Perry prevents access

to the six fora at issue here as a matter of law because the County, like the school district at

issue in Perry, is a government employer. As shown above, in “determining when the

government’s interest in limiting the use of its property to its intended purpose outweighs

the interest of those wishing to use the property for other purposes,” Cornelius, 473 U.S. at

800, the Court “must examine the terms on which the forum operates,” including factspecific terms, such as government intent, and the policy and practice of the government.

Hooper, 241 F.3d at 1075. Moreover, the Court has already found that Local 3190 is likely

to succeed on the merits of its claim with regard to the Bulletin Board, Mailbox, and

Paycheck Fora. Thus, Defendants’ argument is moot.

Defendants also contend a preliminary injunction is not appropriate because other

avenues of communication are available to Local 3190 while the present litigation is

pending. However, “‘one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in

appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.’” Reno

v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 889 (1997) (citation omitted).

E. Bond Requirement

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) provides that “[n]o restraining order or

preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such

sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be

incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or

restrained . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c). “[T]he purpose of such a bond is to cover any costs

or damages suffered by the government, arising from a wrongful injunction . . . .” Gorbach

v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000). Although a preliminary injunction will not

be issued without security by the applicant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), a

district court has wide discretion in setting the amount of a bond, and the bond amount may

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 31 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 32 -

be zero if there is no evidence the party will suffer damages from the injunction. See

Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d 878, 882 (9th Cir.

2003) (stating “[a] judge could dispense with the bond requirement when no request for a

bond was ever made in district court”); see also Gorbach, 219 F.3d at 1092.

In the present case, Defendants have not requested a bond, nor have they submitted

any evidence regarding their likely damages. The Court further finds that the preliminary

injunction ordered here will not likely result in any damages to Defendants. Thus, the Court

will waive the bond requirement. See Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 321 F.3d at 882;

Gorbach, 219 F.3d at 1092.

CONCLUSION

The Court concludes that Local 3190 is likely to succeed on its claim that

Defendants’ denial of access to the County’s Bulletin Board, Mailbox, and Paycheck Fora

violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because the 1991 Solicitation and

Posting Policies, as applied to Local 3190, are unconstitutional. The Court further concludes

that Local 3190 will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is denied with respect to the

County’s Bulletin Board, Mailbox, and Paycheck Fora, access to which is provided under

the Solicitation and Posting Policies. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Local 3190’s Application for a

Preliminary Injunction as outlined below. (Dkt. 2.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING Counts I, II, and V of Local 3190’s

Complaint with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING Defendants Maricopa County Board

of Supervisors, Fulton Brock, Don Stapley, Andrew Kunasek, and Max W. Wilson from

Local 3190’s Complaint with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Maricopa County and David Smith,

as well as each of their officers, representatives, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and

all persons acting in concert or participation with such Defendants, are hereby enjoined and

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 32 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 33 -

restrained, pending the final disposition of the matters involved herein, from barring or

preventing Local 3190 from utilizing the Bulletin Board, Mailbox, and Paycheck fora,

pursuant to the terms of the Solicitation and Posting Policies. See supra at 17-19. Because

Local 3190 failed to produce evidence that its exclusion from the Benefits Fair,

Intranet, and Break Room Fora is unconstitutional, this restraining order does not

apply to the Benefits Fair, Intranet, and Break Room Fora.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no bond requirement will be imposed pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). Supra at 31-32.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02128-SMM Document 43 Filed 03/14/07 Page 33 of 33