University of California

8/6/97 -- The San Jose Mercury News 

 A lawsuit filed in January accusing a United Farm Workers of America official of encouraging female union organizers to offer sex to persuade hesitant field workers to join the labor group was quietly withdrawn last month.

 "One of the witnesses didn't work out. I didn't think she'd be credible," Berkeley attorney James D. Lorenz Jr. said Tuesday.

 Lorenz represented former UFW organizers Gloria Perales of Freedom and Leticia Maravella of Coalinga, who claimed that UFW official Efren Barajas had urged them to offer field hands sex in exchange for joining the union.

 "When the Lorenz lawsuit was filed, the UFW insisted that none of the allegations about sex in exchange for union support was true," UFW Secretary-Treasurer Dolores Huerta said in a prepared statement. "When farmworkers organize, they often face attempts to undermine their efforts by California agribusiness. This was one of the most repugnant attempts that I have seen."

 At a Jan. 23 press conference in Santa Cruz to announce the lawsuit, Maravella and Perales said they refused Barajas' alleged suggestion and asked the union leader if he would request the same of his wife.

 The lawsuit was filed in Santa Cruz County Superior Court and later moved to U.S. District Court in San Jose. In the lawsuit, Barajas was quoted as saying to Maravella: ``If the farmworkers don't want to sign the union card, go to bed with them. Who cares if you get a little dusty?''

 However, Lorenz said, he decided that he couldn't win the case without rock-solid witnesses.

 ``Sexual harassment lawsuits are hard enough as it is. You can't win without credible witnesses,'' Lorenz said. He declined to discuss the matter further.

 Union representatives were pleased.

 ``Our concern was that the motivation behind the filing of the lawsuit was to give negative publicity to the union,'' Indira Talwani, a San Francisco attorney who represented the UFW, said Tuesday. ``After the press splash, they were willing to dismiss it with prejudice.''

 ``Dismiss with prejudice'' is significant, Talwani said, because it means that the same allegations can't be made in another lawsuit.

 ``We hope news outlets will provide as much coverage on the withdrawal of lawsuit as they did when it was filed,'' Huerta said.