Cosmetologists and barbers sue governor over closures

A group of cosmetologists and barbers sued Gov. Gavin Newsom in federal court Tuesday over the designation of their businesses as "nonessential."

"Defendants' arbitrary orders will continue to violate plaintiffs' fundamental rights, inflicting irreversible financial and personal harm to more than 500,000 licensed beauty professionals in California," the lawsuit states. "They have offered no exceptions and identified no future date for reinstatement of these lawful professions." Rose Ibarra et al. v. Newsom, et al., 2:20CV04275 (C.D. Cal., filed May 12, 2020).

The lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California by Harmeet K. Dhillon of Dhillon Law Group and Jake M. Vollebregt of Vollebregt Law Corp.

Dhillon is suing the governor almost daily over closures of houses of worship, beaches and businesses. She said during a video conference Tuesday that beauty salon or barbershop owners wouldn't force employees to show up to work if they feel unsafe.

Plaintiffs simply want to negotiate with Newsom to find safe alternatives to closing their businesses, Dhillon said.

Nearly half a million licensed beauticians and barbers in California have extensive education and training in maintaining sanitary, hygienic conditions, all of which could be followed to stop contagion, Dhillon said. The vagueness of Newsom's orders have criminalized beauticians and resulted in licenses remaining under threat of revocation, she said.

The forced closures have deprived plaintiffs of their use of salons that must be rented and maintained, the lawsuit states.

Dhillon has so far lost most of the motions for injunctions and temporary restraining orders she has filed at the lower court level in connection with the virus-related closures ordered by Newsom. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh said she likely will lose this motion, too. Newsom's orders are regulations aimed at protecting public health and are of legitimate government interest, he said.

But Dhillon's lawsuits seem to serve a larger purpose of building public pressure on the governor. Newsom has, at least in some instances, eased restrictions in the face of lawsuits, protesters, and the public generally flouting his orders. That happened in Orange County. Dhillon sued over beach closures and the judge sided with Newsom. But protesters and surfers showed up to the beach anyway, and a compromise was reached to allow people to go to the beach.

Fred Jones, legal counsel for the Professional Beauty Federation of California, said Tuesday's lawsuit was aimed at heading off some of that chaos. If beauticians are forced to do house calls under the table to make a living, they are performing in a less safe environment, he said.

Both Jones and Dhillon also criticized Newsom's comments last week claiming the pandemic began in the state and first spread in the community from a nail salon. The comments fabricated a fear-mongering narrative that Dhillon called "grossly irresponsible."

Jones called the comments "slanderous," and pointed out many nail salon owners are first generation Vietnamese-Americans.

Newsom's office did not return a request for comment Tuesday.

Michael J. Aguirre of Aguirre Severson LLP once had plans to sue protesters and public entities for opening up too early and creating public nuisances by risking contagion. But he said he agrees the beauticians should be heard.

"I don't know that they're right, but when you deny someone a liberty right, like to get a haircut and other things, you have to have a solid reason for it," Aguirre said. "Newsom could probably show there is proper basis for doing it, but you can't skip the step to be challenged. It's during times of crises the worst denials of constitutional rights have taken place, like the Japanese relocation during World War 2."