Norco woman settles housing discrimination free speech suit

A Norco housewife, whose protests against a group home for the developmentally disabled drew the scrutiny of housing discrimination investigators, has settled a lawsuit alleging the government inquiry infringed on her right to free speech.

Julie Waltz, 64, agreed this month to settle her case in exchange for $110,000 and the promise that the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing will establish a “Julie Waltz First Amendment Policy.”

The new policy prohibits the department from investigating citizens for housing discrimination solely on the basis of free speech activity, including speaking at public meetings, and writing, distributing and displaying signs or newspaper articles critical of public housing projects, even if they appear to advocate discriminatory policies.

The department agreed to adopt the new policy, seek to incorporate it in the California Code of Regulations and will publish it on its website and train employees in its use.

The dispute began when Waltz said she learned from public records that the group home next door to her house intended to serve clients who might make inappropriate sexual advances or who were small-time arsonists. At the time, however, the group home operator said no such individuals lived in the home.

Waltz covered her lawn with protest signs, including one that states in large red letters: “Your wife and kids are potential rape victims per Ca. govt policy.”

After her signs appeared, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing received a complaint from lawyers representing group home residents that alleged Waltz was subjecting them to “verbal, visual and physical” harassment based on their disability.

The complainants said Waltz yelled at staff and residents at the group home; called the police on numerous occasions when disabled residents were seen in the front yard of the group home; used surveillance equipment to monitor group home staff and residents; and followed a disabled resident of the group home on foot and yelled at her.

Waltz denied the charges and said the state offered to end the investigation if she removed her signs. Finally, after a nearly yearlong investigation, the state determined in 2007 that it was unable to substantiate the allegations against her and closed the case.

If found in violation of anti-discrimination laws because of her demonstrations, Waltz could have been ordered to end her protests, pack up her signs and pay fines.

In an interview this week, Waltz said, “I wouldn’t say my speech is offensive, but even if it is, the very speech someone says that’s offensive is the speech we need to protect.”

The Center for Individual Rights, a conservative public interest law firm in Washington, represented Waltz pro bono. The firm’s general counsel, Michael E. Rosman, said, “Although the state did not admit liability in this settlement, they have changed their policy and obviously have some understanding that they were doing something wrong.”

Department of Fair Employment and Housing Director Phyllis Cheng said in a prepared statement: “Thanks to Ms. Waltz, the DFEH has improved its policy and practice of conducting housing discrimination investigations. I am pleased that we have now strengthened the department’s procedures in enforcing the civil rights of all Californians.”

[email protected]