In May, Texas raised the age limit for those working in sexually oriented establishments from 18 to 21 years. Texas workers involved in sex-shops and strip-clubs sued the state at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. They claim that younger adults than 21 are entitled to a Constitutionally Protected Liberty Interest in choosing a profession and that it is obvious that there is a disconnect between the law’s purposes and the required minimum employment age.
Texas counters by stating that age restrictions have been used to limit young people’s exposures to social ills.
Senate Bill 315 defined 18-to-20-year-olds in this way as children. This is in violation of state bans on “employment harmful for children”. It also makes it illegal to induce or employ adults under 21 to nude, topless or participate in “sexually-oriented commercial activities.” This crime, regardless of age of victim or actor knowing it, is classified as a second-degree felony. This offense carries a mandatory two year sentence and can result in a maximum sentence up to 20 years. It also entails a $10,000 fine.
S.B. The offense is punishable with up to a one-year sentence in prison under S.B. Any sexually oriented business, including adult toy shops and bookstores in nearly any capacity. This type of employment can lead to a common nuisance being declared by the state, which could result in the business being shut down and even sentencing.
Adult businesses have fired “droves,” or 18- and 20-year old workers from Texas since the new law became effective, according the Texas Entertainment Association (TEA). TEA represents the interests sex-oriented companies, one of the defendants challenging S.B. 315 Kevin Richardson is a TEA member and owns five adult cabarets. He told the court that he was forced to fire more than 700 workers because of the new law.
Evanny Salzar, a young adult who was laid off after S.B. After S.B., 315 classified her as a minor. Salazar worked at two adult bars in San Antonio Texas where she made about $1,000 per night and didn’t witness human trafficking. This was noted by Robert Pitman, U.S. District Judge. Salazar, who was previously an exotic dancer and homeless at the time of her arrest, lived in her car. Salazar was able to afford housing through her job in the adult cabarets. Salazar lost her job as an exotic dancer and has now become homeless. She works for Door Dash. [sic]There she earns approximately $30 per night.
Pitman refused to injunct S.B. 315 “Legislative history and testimony…are sufficient to support the conclusion that the State held a reasonable belief that S.B. He stated that 315 would “curb harmful secondary effects” from sexually-oriented businesses. Plaintiffs did not present convincing evidence that S.B. 315 “will have no positive effect on the identified damages.”
Exotic dancing, security in a strip club and cashier at a sexshop are just a few of the jobs available to the plaintiffs. Pitman also agreed that certain of these activities were likely to be protected under the First Amendment. Pitman said that the Court did not conclude that Plaintiffs had met the burden to show that S.B. He said that 315 was not rationally connected to the legitimate government interest in curbing trafficking.
William X. says, “Our clients will continue to contest the validity of that law.” King, an attorney representing plaintiffs. The case is not over.