Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 1128.0

529ORD Unit: $PT3

[10-09-01 14:52:06] PGT: ORDPP (Prelim. Print)

ORDERS

1139

1138

Thomas, J., dissenting

I

Respondents, who are Latinos, were employed as drivers at
petitioner Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.’s San Francisco airport
facility. According to the complaint, Lawrence, another employee
of the facility, routinely harassed only the Latino drivers, calling
them derogatory names and demeaning them on the basis of their
race, national origin, and lack of English language skills. Law-
rence also appears to have engaged in uninvited touching of the
Latino drivers. Respondents ﬁled suit against Lawrence and
Avis in California court under that State’s Fair Employment and
Housing Act
“[f]or an
employer . . . or any other person, because of race . . . [or] national
origin . . . to harass an employee or applicant.” Cal. Govt. Code
Ann. § 12940(h) (West 1992). A jury returned special verdicts
in favor of respondents, ﬁnding that Lawrence had engaged in
harassment and that Avis knew or should have known of Law-
rence’s conduct. Respondents were each awarded $25,000 in
damages, except for one who was found by the jury not to have
suffered emotional distress.

(FEHA), which makes

it unlawful

The trial court then considered respondents’ request for in-
junctive relief. Over the objection of petitioners that there was
no evidence of ongoing harm such as would justify an injunction
(Lawrence had not harassed anyone at work for two years),
the trial court granted the requested injunction. Speciﬁcally,
it ordered:

“1. Defendant John Lawrence shall cease and desist from
using any derogatory racial or ethnic epithets directed at, or
descriptive of, Hispanic/Latino employees of Avis Rent A Car
System, Inc., and shall further refrain from any uninvited
intentional touching of said Hispanic/Latino employees, as
long as he is employed by Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
in California.

“2. Defendant Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. shall cease
and desist from allowing defendant John Lawrence to commit
any of the acts described in paragraph 1 above, under circum-
stances in which it knew or should have known of such
acts . . . .” App. to Pet. for Cert. C2.

Lawrence and Avis appealed from the injunction portion of the
judgment, claiming it is impermissibly overbroad and vague. The
Court of Appeal agreed to an extent, holding that the injunction