Folgueras v. Hassle
1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11751, 331 F. Supp. 615 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's property rights do not include the right to deny migrant workers living on the property access to visitors or to representatives of government and private aid organizations, as such a denial infringes upon the workers' constitutional rights, common law property rights, and rights as tenants.
Facts:
- Joseph Hassle owned and operated fifteen agricultural labor camps in Michigan to house migrant workers he employed.
- The Gutierrez family, who worked for Hassle and lived in one of his camps, were in financial distress and sought assistance from United Migrants for Opportunity, Inc. (UMOI).
- Donald Folgueras and Violadelle Valdez were UMOI employees tasked with providing social services to migrant workers.
- Hassle, attributing worker discontent to visitors, directed that visitors should be arrested for trespass.
- On July 22, 1969, Hassle forcibly removed Folgueras from a camp for taking a water sample.
- The next day, when Valdez and Folgueras returned at the invitation of the Gutierrez family to help their sick children, Hassle physically attacked Folgueras, kicking him and holding him on the ground with a shotgun for two hours.
- Hassle consistently used violence and threats to deny access to other service providers, including a church-affiliated group, a county health department worker trying to deliver an emergency message, and a school recruiter for migrant children.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Folgueras, Violadelle Valdez, and the Gutierrez family filed a civil action against Joseph Hassle in federal court, seeking damages and a declaratory judgment for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.
- In a separate action, the United States sued Hassle in the same court to enjoin him from denying access to his labor camps to representatives of assistance programs.
- The court consolidated the two cases for the purpose of its opinion due to the similar legal questions.
- Plaintiffs in the first case (Folgueras, et al.) moved for a partial summary judgment, asking the court to declare their legal right of access to the camps.
- The parties in the second case (United States v. Hassle) agreed to a consent decree enjoining Hassle from interfering with access, which was presented to the court for signature.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private landowner's ownership of an agricultural labor camp include the right to bar access to the camp for visitors and representatives of governmental and private service organizations who are seeking to assist the resident migrant workers?
Opinions:
Majority - Fox, Chief Judge
No. A private landowner may not lawfully bar access to his migrant labor camps for visitors or representatives of assistance groups. The court's holding rests on three independent grounds. First, under the First Amendment, applying the principle from Marsh v. Alabama, the more an owner opens their property for public use, the more their property rights are circumscribed by the constitutional rights of those who use it. The labor camps, functioning as the workers' community, are not private enclaves where residents' rights to association and information can be suspended; enforcing a trespass statute against visitors would be unconstitutional state action. Second, under common law property principles articulated in New Jersey v. Shack, property rights are not absolute and must accommodate necessity; the owner cannot assert a right to isolate workers from essential services provided by governmental or charitable groups. Third, the migrant workers are tenants, not just employees, as housing is part of their compensation. As tenants, they possess the fundamental right to receive guests and visitors of their choosing, and the landlord may not interfere with this right of beneficial enjoyment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits a landowner's right to exclude others from property that serves as a residence for employees, particularly for a vulnerable population like migrant workers. It establishes that such workers are not serfs but tenants with attendant rights, including the right to receive visitors and access essential services. The opinion provides a powerful, multi-pronged legal framework (constitutional, property, and landlord-tenant law) for challenging access restrictions in similar contexts, reinforcing that property rights do not confer dominion over the lives of people living on the property.
