Seven years after four bikers were banned from the Garlic
Festival for sporting skull-emblazoned vests, their lawsuit against
Gilroy’s signature event is still kicking.
Gilroy – Seven years after four bikers were banned from the Garlic Festival for sporting skull-emblazoned vests, their lawsuit against Gilroy’s signature event is still kicking.
The Hollister chapter of the Top Hatter motorcycle club filed suit against the festival and the city of Gilroy in 2001, complaining that their free speech rights were violated by the festival’s dress code, which bans gang colors and other insignia – including the symbols of motorcycle clubs. For the festival, it’s a matter of public safety, said attorney Gregory Simonian.
“I can only point you to the Laughlin [riot at the River Run casino] and the violence that occurred there,” he said, referring to a bloody clash between Hell’s Angels and Mongols, two biker gangs. The Top Hatters, a motorcycle club, are not classified as a criminal gang. “That is what we want to avoid at the Garlic Festival.”
The Top Hatter’s suit has rolled slowly through the justice system, and was denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this April.
But Friday, the Top Hatters won another day in court. The club’s suit will be reheard by an 11-judge panel, which will reconsider the April ruling made by only three judges. A San Francisco appeals court decided Friday to re-hear the case. No specific date was set.
“We’re ecstatic,” said Paul Allman, a legal clerk for the Top Hatters’ attorney, Randolph Hammock. Hammock was traveling and unavailable for comment Monday. “This is an easy case. It should be routine … The thought that somebody would be thrown out of a festival for a patch on their jacket is literally amazing.”
Three judges canned the Top Hatters’ case in April, ruling that the club’s matching vests weren’t protected speech, because the Hatters didn’t agree what the symbols meant. One club member, Bob Poelker, said the symbol, a winged skull with a top hat, meant “whatever you want to interpret it as.” The April ruling echoed a similar finding by a district court, which ruled in the Garlic Festival’s favor.
“Right now, we’ve prevailed at every level,” said Simonian.
But the Top Hatters’ attorney believes that the three-judge panel “made a very, very grave error” in April, said Allman.
“The First Amendment doesn’t just apply when you have a clear message,” he said. “A picture, a painting, even a nude dance – all those are protected by the First Amendment, though you might not know what the artist is trying to tell you.”
Friday’s decision extends the legal battle for the Garlic Festival Association and for the city, which is named as a defendant in the case because Gilroy police escorted the Top Hatters from the event.
“This is a matter between the Festival Association and the plaintiffs,” said Mark Strombotne, an attorney representing the city in the case. “The city wants the festival to remain family friendly and peaceful, and it’s trying to help achieve that end” by enforcing the dress code.
In April, association president Brian Bowe estimated the group had spent $82,000 fending off the suit. The money covers the city’s fees, while the association’s legal fees are covered by its insurance, Bowe explained. As the case runs longer, the fees will climb higher.
“There’s no way of knowing” when the case will actually be heard, said Bowe. “It’s been seven years, and we’ve learned that the wheels of justice turn very slowly.”
The Top Hatters have also filed a pending civil liberties suit against both the association and the city. Allman argues that the Garlic Festival policy exemplifies “routine discrimination” against motorcyclists, despite their increasingly upscale demographics.
“They’re doctors and lawyers, not the Hell’s Angels of yesteryear,” said Allman. “But there’s still a perception gap.”
