Court Opinion

ID: 9528234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:38:38.729494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:36.258741
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The majority correctly perceives that Cleopatra Ross has been wronged in this case; however, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion. If Cleopatra Ross has a remedy, it is not against Conway, Inc., d/b/a the Shamrock.
It is not seriously disputed that Cleopatra did engage in an act of prostitution with one A. Otto Lincoln.1 The district court made this finding of fact, with which the superior court agreed, and the majority does not take issue.2 My conclusion that Cleopatra Ross cannot recover is not, however, based on the moral reprehensibility of her conduct. Indeed, assuming the applicability of a moral litmus, she places a distant second to the Shamrock. The Shamrock is a local tavern in Ketchikan, of the genre that constantly treads the fine line between mere poor taste and outright illegality.3 With such establishments, license revoca*1034tion never falls below the level of a distinct possibility, and this fact was apparent to Conway, Inc., d/b/a the Shamrock. The superior court noted that the local police maintained a “close scrutiny” of the tavern; and its position was evidently precarious enough that an admonishing telephone call from the district attorney triggered this litigation. However, the Shamrock’s affinity for the green was such that it never allowed such considerations to interfere with its pursuit of profits. And yet the Shamrock’s attitude towards its “girls” was somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, it clearly wanted to hold out to its customers the pleasurable prospect of following in A. Otto’s footsteps, and thus such regulations as: “Girls are expected to mix with all the customers not to sit all together at one table”; “Keep your boy friends out of the club”; and “Girls must dance topless for one song out of each three songset.” On the other hand, it is also clear that the Shamrock intended its customers’ reaches to exceed their grasps, and thus: “No leaving the bar with men” and “No men will be allowed in the living quarters.” As the superior court noted, “As best I can interpret it, the dancers are required to tease but are not expected to connect.”
Thus, I share with the majority some sympathy for Cleopatra Ross’s position here; the Shamrock’s objections to her exploitation of her body for financial gain ring a trifle hollow, in light of its own clear intent to do the same.4 However, I am convinced that a proper application of the principles of contract law leads to the conclusion that the discharge was justifiable, in that Ms. Ross had violated a condition of the employment contract.
Resolution of the issue must start with an assessment of the contract itself. The document appears to be a form contract put out by “Danny Zezzo’s Dancers A-La Carte,”5 with a copy of the Shamrock’s rules and regulations attached. It contains no express provision prohibiting prostitution. However, “contractors can ‘express' their intentions otherwise than by the use of specific words.” 3A A. Corbin, Contracts § 631 (1960). Here, I think that both parties evinced an understanding that the contract would be terminable if Cleopatra Ross engaged in prostitution. The Shamrock did so by its actions in terminating her employment; Ms. Ross did so even more explicitly, at trial, where she testified that it was her understanding that, if she engaged in prostitution in Ketchikan, Mr. Conway could terminate the contract.
Even if resort must be made to a “constructive” condition (i. e., one implied in law) as the majority assumes, I must disagree with the majority’s conclusion, although not with its analysis: “The question thus becomes whether Conway’s business could have been injured if it had continued to employ Ross after learning of her act of *1035prostitution.” I would be inclined to answer this question as the majority has, were we considering solely the conduct of Cleopatra Ross herself; but here, her conduct must be coupled with that of the district attorney who, although the record contains no evidence that he attempted to convict this latter-day Queen of the Nile through proper channels (perhaps due to A. Otto’s somewhat casual attitude toward court attendance),6 took it upon himself to rid Ket-chikan of Ms. Ross by applying pressure on the hapless Conway, Inc., d/b/a the Shamrock. This venerable institution was, like virtually all the characters in this drama, caught in a compromising position. Conway, the owner, admitted at trial that the Shamrock consistently violated at least one law, former AS 04.10.040(b) and a parallel provision in the Ketchikan Municipal Code; indeed, the violation is explicitly required as part of the contract in the record.7 This would have constituted grounds for action by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board and perhaps independently by the district attorney, and thus I think Conway’s fear of reprisals was not unjustified. Even assuming the majority is correct in concluding that the district attorney’s attempts to get the ABCB to revoke the Shamrock’s license would ultimately have proven groundless, the Shamrock would have been put through considerable expense and effort in defending its rights to retain its license and Cleopatra’s right to remain free of unwarranted intrusions by the district attorney into her contractual relations with the Shamrock. Especially since the case law indicates that a tendency to injure, rather than actual injury to, the employer’s business is all that need be shown,8 I must conclude that the Shamrock has demonstrated that Cleopatra Ross has violated the constructive covenant noted above,9 and discharge was therefore justified. I do concur in the majority’s statement that the district attorney’s actions here were unjustified.

. Cleopatra Ross does argue that this particular finding by the district court was not supported by the evidence, in that her testimony was presented in person, whereas that of A. Otto Lincoln was submitted by deposition. I cannot agree. The district court was faced with little more than two conflicting bare assertions of fact, and his conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. It is not likely that A. Otto was mistaken about Cleopatra Ross’s identity; in the community of Ketchikan, it is unlikely that one would find more than one exotic danger with (according to A. Otto’s deposition) “a diamond ring in her nose, which is quite unusual.” Nor can I accept the suggestion that A. Otto was, as Ms. Ross contended in her testimony at trial, lying to retaliate for her refusal to kiss him in “Howard’s Charcoal Broiler.” A. Otto’s deposition incriminated himself as well as Ms. Ross; and the lone attempt of her attorney (who was present when A. Otto’s deposition was taken) to discredit the witness was unsuccessful, as the only prior crime to which A. Otto would admit was a “[p]olitical crime. I ... was involved against the Russian Communists, and when they were within the border of the country [apparently Rumania] I volunteered fighting against the Russians. Boys that got Congressional Medals of Honor here, I was convicted as an ordinary political criminal.”

. Not only was this finding of an act of prostitution supported by substantial evidence in the record, it appears it was also somewhat unful-filling, according to A. Otto’s description of his $150 fling: “[T]he basic purpose that I was there ... was to go to bed with her which [I] did. It wasn’t all that difficult because the bed, I don’t suppose it was ever made and the color TV was constantly playing which I didn’t like at all. It made everything look like such commercialized entertainment.”

. At trial, Mr. Conway, the owner of Conway, Inc., admitted that he permitted his employees to solicit drinks for a commission in violation of former AS 04.10.040(b). Indeed, this practice was explicitly included in the rules and regulations appended to Cleopatra Ross’s employment contract:
Girls may not drink anything but the house drink while they are on shift. The house drink sells for $3.00 and the girl receives a $1.00 commission on each one they sell. If they sell a tenth of champagne the one to sell it receives a $3.00 commission. If a fifth is sold the commission is $5.00. If a magnum is sold the commission is $10.00.
It was apparently the position of Mr. Conway and his attorney that the statute, and its parallel provision in the Ketchikan Municipal Code, were unconstitutional in that they discriminated on the basis of sex. This concern for social equality, although commendable, was misplaced here, as the statute in question had been rendered sex-neutral in 1974 by the legislature. Ch. 127, § 57, SLA 1974. During the period here relevant, the statute read, in pertinent part, as follows:
(b) A citizen of the United States, over the age of 19 years and of good moral character, may be regularly employed as a waiter or waitress in an establishment operating under a beverage dispensary license. The duties of waiters and waitresses employed therein shall be confined to taking orders and serving beverages, alcoholic or otherwise, and food. Waiters and waitresses employed under this *1034section may not solicit or encourage the purchase of beverages, alcoholic or otherwise, by the patron of the premises, whether the beverage is for the patron or for another. No waiter or waitress may accept any beverage, alcoholic or otherwise, purchased for him or her by a patron of the establishment.
Nothing in this separate opinion shall be taken as expressing any view of nude dancing as it relates to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression. Such issues are before this court in Mickens v. Kodiak, File No. 5628.

. Indeed, in light of the parallel aims of the Shamrock and Ms. Ross, it might also be said that the Shamrock is asking us to find an implied condition on Ms. Ross’s part not to compete, which, being subject to a rule of strict construction as a covenant in restraint of trade, should not lightly be implied. See 6A A. Corbin, Contracts § 1392 (1962). However, the parties do not raise this argument.

. Although it took a while to establish this point, it appears that Danny Zezzo was Cleopatra Ross’s agent:
Q. And, Miss Ross, could you identify the signature on that contract?
A. Yes. In the left-hand corner, there’s the agent that I work for.
Q. And what is his name?
A. Danny Zezzo.
Q. Excuse me, what’s that name?
A. Danny Zezzo.
Q. Danny Zezzo?
A. Um-hm.
Q. And whose agent is he?
A. He’s my agent.
Q. Í see. All right. Please continue.

. At the original trial of this matter, the district court judge refused to admit A. Otto’s deposition because A. Otto, although subpoenaed on the day of his deposition (the day preceding trial), was not present at the trial itself. The superior court overturned this ruling in a prior decision, which we summarily upheld.

. See n. 3 supra.

. See Wyatt v. Brown, 42 S.W. 478, 481-82 (Tenn.App.1897).

. See also 3A A. Corbin, Contracts § 681 (1960): “To a candid observer, it would seem that such conduct as drunkenness, sexual immorality, or persistent lying, would justify the discharge of a minister of the gospel, a Y.M. C.A. secretary, or the superintendent at a home for children. The employer in such cases could reasonably expect that the value of the promised performance would be gravely affected.” Although Cleopatra Ross does not fit any of these categories precisely, I think that the value of her promised performance would be gravely affected, and thus the same principle applies.