California Labor Law News
.jpg)
Working at California Car Washes
Just two months prior to this overtime lawsuit, two other lawsuits were filed against three Los Angeles car wash businesses -- Rosecrans King Car Wash, Wilshire Car Wash and Vermont Auto Spa -- for California labor code violations, including failure to provide minimum wage, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and overtime pay to employees. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, penalties and damages totaling more than $2 million.
Because car wash employees, or “carwasheros”, are classified as non-exempt, they must be paid for all hours worked. If their hours exceed more than 8 hours per day, or 40 hours per week, they must be paid overtime at a rate of 1.5 their regular rate of pay. And in the state of California, they are entitled to a 30-minute lunch break and two 15-minute rest breaks during an 8-hour shift.
Furthermore, if a carwashero receives tips, those monies belong to the employee, not the manager. And tips cannot be deducted from the regular rate of pay, which would be contrary to the California labor law.
Aren’t car wash employers familiar with California labor laws? Do car wash owners weigh the odds and decide that it’s more cost effective to break the law than pay their workers minimum wage and overtime? Say the car wash employer??"or any employer for that matter---has a class action lawsuit filed against them.
“In many class actions your typical opt-in rate may be only 20 percent, so there is a big incentive for employers to break the law,” says attorney Allen Vaught. “Many employers take the risk, and if they get caught, it’s no big deal.” In other words, employers make more money by breaking the law and paying the penalty because not everyone is going to join the class action lawsuit. Workers typically don’t come forward because they are afraid of retaliation??"but retaliation is another violation of the California labor code."
However, the gamble may not pay off. “An employer has to pay double the amount due, unless they have a good faith basis for not having paid overtime to their employees,” adds Vaught. “And they must pay legal fees.”
Vaught wishes there were stiffer penalties for overtime violations. “There is no mechanism for punitive damages so economically it makes more sense to break the law.”
Meanwhile, lawsuits will continue. But conditions for car wash workers may be improving, given a recent overtime settlement.
In January 2012, a settlement of $800,000 was reached in favor of employees at eight car washes in California. The car wash owners were alleged to have not paid overtime, falsified payment records, and denied workers rest and meal breaks.
.jpg)
California Labor Law Settlement Worth $90 Million
As noted in the Daily News of Los Angeles (7/11/12), the dispute between Jennifer Augustus and her fellow plaintiffs and ABM Security Services centered on the expectation of being on call while on break. The California labor code mandates that employees are provided with regular meal and rest breaks within their workday??"during which they are not required to perform any work??"unless there are special circumstances.
To that point, the defendant had at one time an exemption in place that allowed for on-duty breaks by their security personnel. However, it has been reported the company failed to seek a renewal when the policy expired.
Augustus worked for ABM in Woodland Hills from 2003 to 2006. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John S. Wiley awarded $89.7 million in wages, interest and penalties, and noted in his ruling, "Put simply, if you are on call, you are not on break. That has been the law for many years."
Even though the class action California labor lawsuit represented workers across the land, the guards involved worked primarily in Southern California and the Bay Area. ABM was based in San Francisco at the time of the ruling. It has been reported they will contest the award.
Assuming the award stands, according to California labor employment law, the payout to the plaintiffs will be founded upon their individual hourly rate of pay, together with their tenure with the firm.
The California and labor law award was for $89.7 million and represents lost wages, interest and penalties.
In a related story, it appears as if wage and hour lawsuits are on the rise, according to the Sacramento Business Journal (7/23/12). While it is a national phenomenon, the trend is also being seen in California, representing California labor employment law cases. Those numbers reflect a total of 7,064 cases filed nationally under the Federal Labor Standards Act for the year ended March 31st, v. 5,302 for 2008. That's a 33 percent increase.
Complaints under California prevailing wage law remain fairly common??"as do issues having to do with misclassification, work performed off the clock and incorrect, or lack of overtime pay for non-exempt workers.
Plaintiff Sues Exclusive Golf Club for Alleged California Labor Law Violations
The California labor lawsuit alleges discrimination against Angeles National. As reported in The Daily News of Los Angeles (7/11/12)) plaintiff Carly Cooter??"a former employee at the facility??"alleges that a customer of the facility walked up behind her where she was working, squeezed her breasts and simulated sex. The lawsuit claims the customer was likely in a drunken state on the day of the incident, which is alleged to have happened in 2006 or 2007.
Following a complaint by the plaintiff, a supervisor who was apparently required to handle the situation instead made mocking comments towards Cooter. The plaintiff's shifts were reduced, and she was subsequently fired. One report suggests Cooter's confidential summary of the alleged assault was posted in the facility's Pro Shop where it could be seen by customers and other employees.
Her lawsuit alleges various violations to the California labor code, including wrongful termination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, a hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and breach of contract.
Another California labor lawsuit has been filed by a former employee of the facility who complained about a video camera mounted at the snack bar where she worked. The plaintiff in that action claims the camera broadcast footage of her posterior and those of other female employees working at the snack bar to various television monitors around the golf club. One report suggested the images revealed underwear. When the plaintiff complained, she was allegedly fired??"a violation of California employment labor law, if proven true.
The aforementioned lawsuit has yet to go to trial.
Defendant Angeles National, in a statement released through a public relations firm, called the accusations "ridiculous, salacious and unfounded.
"We trust the courts will recognize the cases for what they are," said Spokesperson Eric Rose, "an unconscionable and irresponsible abuse of the legal system by disgruntled former employees."
The California labor law trial is being conducted at Los Angeles Superior Court. The case is BC439058 Cooter v. Angeles National.
Safety Hazards Violation of California Labor Law
In Jonathan’s case, he was already in the unsafe and dangerous workplace. The California labor code also says that “No employer shall require, or permit any employee to go or be in any employment or place of employment which is not safe and healthful.”
“I worked as a cook at Chipotle for three months,” says Jonathan. “It was just a matter of time before someone had a serious accident. No one spoke up about the safety conditions here; nobody brought it to the supervisor’s attention. I know they were afraid of losing their jobs if they did complain about the hazardous environment. They always complained amongst each other, at every chance they could. But when push came to shove, nobody would back me.
"Some people have been working at Chipotle for years and they like their jobs. I work mostly with women in the kitchen and they constantly complained about how they didn’t like the conditions. There were slippery floors, for one thing. The first time I complained to my boss was about a big pot, it was a huge pressure cooker that only had one handle??"the other had broken off.
"My boss said, ‘Just work with it and you have to learn how to move around in this job, adapt’. She didn’t want to hear that anything was unsafe. But how can you take a heavy pot from one end of the kitchen to the dishwasher that is boiling hot and ‘adapt’? I’m sure my employer is familiar with California labor employment law??"they count on employees not speaking out because they are afraid of losing their jobs.
"I have to prep food. The policy at Chipotle is that you have to wear a metal mesh cutting glove (I’m 6’ 4” and 220 lbs) but the glove they gave me was way too small. I got bruises and my hand was cramped, so I complained. My boss said that she couldn’t get another glove because someone threw the others away. I have knife skills but this was their policy: If you got caught by the manager not wearing it you would be fired. On my first day I started prepping without the glove and I was reprimanded. ‘Whoa, don’t ever do that again, ever,’ my boss told me. ‘If you cut yourself not wearing the glove, we aren’t liable.’ I guess someone had a bad accident in the past…
"Here’s another thing: The pilots on the ovens always went out while I was cooking. There were usually a few burners that didn’t work; I would turn on the burner but it wouldn’t ignite. I shouldn’t have to light the pilots all the time but that went on for weeks. When you’re in a hurry, you just turn your burner on and if it didn’t light, sometimes it took a while to relight the pilot. This meant that gas was pumping out of that burner??"sometimes for a minute or so.
"The last time I complained, my supervisor basically told me to shut up and just do my job. I believe I got fired because of the safety issues but my boss told me it was because I ‘had an attitude’. I didn’t smile enough and customers can see me??"we work in an open kitchen. It’s pretty hard to smile all the time with my hand in that mesh glove, walking on slippery floors and trying to carry a pot with one handle.”
The California labor code states:
Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in his or her employment or place of employment, or has participated in an employer-employee occupational health and safety committee, shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer. Any employer who willfully refuses to rehire, promote, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure, arbitration, or hearing authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Labor Code Section 6300)
No employee shall be laid off or discharged for refusing to perform work in the performance of which this code, including Section 6400, any occupational safety or health standard or any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated, where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or his or her fellow employees. Any employee who is laid off or discharged in violation of this section or is otherwise not paid because he or she refused to perform work in the performance of which this code, any occupational safety or health standard or any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated and where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or his or her fellow employees shall have a right of action for wages for the time the employee is without work as a result of the layoff or discharge. (Labor Code Section 6311.)
CA Labor Law: Nurse Wrongfully Terminated for Whistleblowing
Cynthia was hired three years ago as a full time ER nurse at a rural medical center and was paid hourly. About a year later some personnel changes took place and her hours were cut, to the extent that some weeks she didn’t get any hours. Then in March of 2009 she got a call from her supervisor: all per diem employees were off the schedule until further notice.
“I told her that I was working full time and I was not a per diem employee,” says Cynthia. “To make a long story short, I was off work for about two months??"I came back as a per diem employee but worked full-time until I got my status back but it took two years. I lost all my PTO (paid time off) vacation pay and sick leave. They made it all disappear. I also lost my ER position.
"Then a woman in HR contacted me: she found a folder with my personnel documents and wanted me to identify them??"she was confused because the information was contradictory and she needed to get her record straight with verification from me. When I saw the documents it looked like someone had changed my status and I have no idea why. I can only assume the hospital board was upset that I got hired at this rate of pay rather than per diem status and they proceeded to cover their tracks.
"It looks like my original contract was altered to make it look like I was hired per diem. You can see that dates have been changed and information superimposed onto the contract that says “hired as per diem with no benefits” with several signatures. It is easy to compare my original contract (I have a copy) with this one??"it is quite absurd; I guess they thought I wouldn’t do anything about it.
"I was pulled from ER and put on the acute care ward, but we weren’t busy enough. They were doing a lot of illegal procedures, such as not having a respiratory therapist on the ward, and I complained to the CEO. I also reported problems with staffing to the state department of health licensing, but not before I gave the CEO time to correct any illegal staffing issues. I told him that we could get shut down if we were ever inspected and patients’ lives were at stake. He said they didn’t have the budget to make changes.
"One month later nothing had changed and they continued to hassle me, not giving me enough hours??"some weeks I didn’t get any hours. And they moved me constantly from day shift to night shift. I just wanted to be either on days or nights??"they were trying to shake me loose.
"On Valentines Day I reported them and the state agency came in four days later, unannounced. At this point hospital administration didn’t know that I made the call and to this day they still don’t know for sure, even though I did advise them to make changes. They had one hour to get staffing in place or get shut down so I got a call at home to report to work ASAP and not to ask any questions.
"The investigation noted multiple deficiencies and it went on until the end of April, 2011. A few people said kudos that I called but they continued to make my life hell. Ultimately they wrote me up for ridiculous things such as discussing confidential drug screening with a co-worker. It was three strikes and I was out.
"Finally the administrator read me the riot act: I was only to come in when I was called. Per diem people were working full time and full time people were working part-time. About a week later I had a meeting with the supervisor and CEO and they tried to talk me into resigning because ‘it wasn’t working out’. But I told them to fire me.
"Bottom line: stand up for what you believe is right and work for a reputable place. As a nurse, I have a reputation to uphold and I believe in my profession. I got another job but at a lesser salary; what I really want is my job back in ER. That hospital used to be a good place to work before corrupt people took over and placed profits over patients.
"I called the labor board the day I was fired and they sent me a package to fill out. I haven’t got any further with them because they are backlogged. Then an attorney from LawyersandSettlements called and I filled out the preliminary paperwork last week.
"My husband and I moved to this rural town to eventually retire but losing my position and taking my benefits away has turned our lives upside down and I don’t think I can retire anytime soon. I believe that I should be compensated for about half my income and my attorney believes so too.”
Is Cost-Cutting Wal-Mart Bad for California Labor Law?
That retailer is Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The National Employment Law Project, a labor organization advocating for low-wage workers, released a study critical of Wal-Mart and how it has decimated wages and benefits in the name of cost control. Some of the criticism translates as an affront to California labor code.
The Los Angeles Times (6/6/12) reported on the study, which relates to a large warehouse wholly-owned by Wal-Mart in Mira Loma, south of the Los Angeles / Ontario International Airport. The massive retailer has a partial ownership stake in another warehouse facility as well.
The study, according to the LA Times report, found that Wal-Mart has cut its costs on the supply side by outsourcing the operation of its warehousing, and the delivery of inventory. Those third-party entities, according to the study, will often hire Latino workers and pay them less??"sometimes at rates which fall below the stated minimum wage as identified under California labor code.
The Times report referenced a California labor lawsuit filed this past October against Wal-Mart's prime subcontractor, Schneider Logistics Inc., as well as Impact Logistics Inc. and Premier Warehousing Ventures. The complaint included allegations that employees were "forced to work long hours, under oppressive conditions for legally inadequate pay," sometimes below the state minimum wage of $8 an hour, according to the Times report.
The study "is not in any way suggesting that using subcontractors is a bad thing in and of itself," said Catherine Ruckelshaus, one of the authors of the study. But "when you're acting like Wal-Mart and exercising control at the warehouse and insisting on low cost, low cost, it puts pressure on the contractors and others in the chain to do work for subpar wages and under unhealthy working conditions," she said.
The state of California has previously levied fines in excess of $1 million against Impact Logistics and Premier Warehousing for violations of California labor employment law. Those violations are said to have included improper pay records and the failure to maintain itemized pay statements for hundreds of temporary workers.
Critics of the Wal-Mart model have observed other major retailers have dipped their toes into the third-party waters, in an effort to cut their own costs and compete with the retail juggernaut.
The California and labor law report noted that Schneider denied any wrongdoing, while Premier and Impact failed to respond to requests for comment. The Times repot noted that Premier cancelled its contract with Wal-Mart, while Schneider agreed to hire the workers as direct employees and pay them a wage of $12.75 per hour plus benefits. Under California labor employment law, workers must be paid a minimum of eight dollars per hour, and be provided with regular meal, and rest breaks.
A spokesperson for Wal-Mart noted in a statement that the giant retailer holds "contractors and subcontractors to the highest standards and expects them to comply with all applicable laws," according to California employee labor law, noted Dan Fogleman, in comments published in the LA Times.
Recent Meal and Rest Break Decisions could result in California Overtime Lawsuits, says Attorney
In April 2012 the California Supreme Court clarified the law with respect to meal breaks and rest breaks. “We had an explosion of meal and rest claims in California in recent years,” says Leonard Emma, California labor law attorney. “Right now employers are touting Brinker as a victory but the Court’s holding isn’t as remarkable or sweeping as the defense bar is making it out to be.”
Emma says that in the legal world there are certain highly-anticipated decisions that lawyers will attempt to spin into game-changers, and that is what is happening with the Brinker case. “The key issue the Brinker Court decided is the extent of employers’ obligations with respect to providing meal and rest periods to employees,” says Emma. “Must employers simply permit employees to take breaks? Or must employers police the workforce and pro-actively ensure that employees are relieved of all work duties during designated break periods? Brinker is important because the penalty for each meal or rest period violation is one hour of pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate. When dealing with a large class of hundreds or thousands of employees, the stakes are high.”
In Brinker, the defense (employer) prevailed in its argument that employers need only to make breaks available and that employers are not be required to police the workforce to pro-actively ensure all employees stop all work during designated breaks. “While this clarifies the law, it is a common-sense decision and should not come as a great surprise,” explains Emma. “Employers still may not require that employees work through breaks without paying a premium for the violation, which is one-hour of pay at the regularly hourly rate. Similarly, employers may not impede or discourage employees from taking meal or rest breaks.”
“Workers will still be pressured to work through breaks by unscrupulous employers after Brinker,” predicts Emma, “and meal and rest period claims remain viable after Brinker.” Emma notes that there are other ways to vindicate employees’ rights in the meal and rest break context. For example, off-the-clock and overtime violations resulting from work performed during meal periods are unaffected by this decision. “The Brinker Court held that work performed by an employee while off-the-clock during his or her meal period must be paid if the employer knows or should know the employee is working,” says Emma. “To the extent this off-the-clock work results in overtime, overtime wages are owed. Keep in mind that this is the law in California only and these rules apply to non-exempt employees.”
Also in April, the California Supreme Court issued a second and separate meal and rest break decision in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection Inc. In the Kirby case, the employer prevailed at trial and judgment was entered against the plaintiff to pay the employer’s attorneys fee but the California Supreme Court overturned that decision. “Kirby held that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable by either prevailing employees or prevailing employers in meal or rest period violation claims,” says Emma.
So how does this all play out for the average California worker? Emma says that California employment attorneys will probably file fewer lawsuits alleging meal and rest period claims exclusively. “First, the employer doesn’t have to proactively ensure breaks are taken so employees cannot hope to prevail on that theory,” he adds. “Second, there is less incentive for attorneys to take these cases on an individual basis.”
But it isn’t all doom and gloom for wage and hour attorneys. “There are often separate grounds for recovery of attorneys’ fees in wage and hour cases,” says Emma. “For example, meal and rest period violations are often brought in tandem with claims for unpaid overtime. Attorneys’ fees are available to prevailing employees in overtime cases. Furthermore, in the class action context, attorneys’ fees are recoverable under the common fund, substantial benefit, and/or private attorney general theories.”
For this reason, plaintiffs’ attorneys should not be deterred from filing wage and hour class actions that include strong meal and rest period claims. “I would expect to see fewer questionable meal and rest cases filed, which is a good thing,” quips Emma. “Otherwise it’s business as usual.”
Late Paycheck: California Labor Law Violation?
Perry is one of about 580,000 people that work for the US Postal Service. Because he is the local steward for his post office, Perry has received a number of complaints regarding late paychecks.
“Frankly I am disturbed that this practice happens and I want it to stop,” Perry says, “and I have no hesitation using my name because I am opposed to my employer breaking the California labor law and the federal law.
“Since I became shop steward I notice this practice more frequently because I am now the ‘go to’ guy. Just a few months ago a co-worker told me that he and several other employees didn’t get their paychecks. I went immediately to management and said in no uncertain terms that they must pay their employees by a cash advance - they can issue money orders. Two employees were told earlier in the day that they couldn’t be paid and had to come back next week, regardless whether they are scheduled to work or not. Some of these people are part-time so they have to make an effort to return to the main office and possibly pay for transportation to pick up their checks.
“A more recent incident happened to a co-worker I know personally. He is in desperate need of income and must get paid on time. He had to wait eight days after the due payday, which is more than two weeks after the pay period. He had to live off his credit card so he was forced to pay late fees and overcharges incurred. This isn’t right.”
Perry is right in that he needs an experienced California employee labor law attorney to advise him. Although the California labor law requires that wages are to be paid on the regular pay day due, there is no automatic fine if the employer misses a day. (This is not to be confused with getting your final paycheck upon termination.) However, a lawsuit can be filed…
The latest incident happened to a part-time employee who asked Perry to file a grievance because his paycheck didn’t get electronically deposited in his account. He wasn’t scheduled to work the next week and it was difficult to return each day looking for his paycheck.
“During the grievance process (the first meeting discusses the case and we try to find a resolution process) I questioned the postmaster about the reasons why the cash advance was denied,” Perry explains. "She argued that the employee didn’t bother to come in the following week to get his money. She said it was his fault for not showing up the following week. They said there was nothing they could do about it. In other words, the postal service is blaming their employee for not coming in every day the following week to see if his check was available.
“But I know the postal service policy regulations state otherwise. The postal service has specific guidelines for the management to follow when a missing or lost paycheck occurs. When this employee asked for a cash advance - as stated in our company policy handbook - they still refused to accept accountability.”
Perry’s incident happened a few years ago, but it had to do with a pay error. “Again, I brought it to management’s attention, told them to correct it, but it took an exorbitant amount of time - about six weeks -before it was corrected,” Perry says. “They corrected a portion of it on the next pay check but I didn’t get my full pay until about three pay checks later.
“I was a shop steward a long time as a letter carrier - believe me, I can write a book about all the labor law violations. Now I am at a point in my life where I want to do something about it. If I don’t get involved now, I never will. This is what I need to give back to my union that has represented me well over the past 24 years.
“I checked with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and I have sent a number of emails to the California labor board. Even after the volumes of information I have read about California labor law, I still don’t know if the postal service is exempt. I heard that the postal service, a federal government agency, is exempt from many state laws.
“Then I found LawyersandSettlements. I was just contacted by your attorney and I’m hopeful that I will finally get some answers. With this practice happening to so many people, perhaps the postal service needs someone to file a class action lawsuit so they will stop violating the labor laws.”
Class Action Lawsuit Attempts to Clean Up the Car Wash
The latest blight on the car wash horizon was revealed this week in the Los Angeles Times (5/22/12) following the filing of a lawsuit by the Mexican American League Defense and Educational Fund against the operators of a trio of car washes in the state.
According to the report, Bijan, Edna and Kambiz Damavandi are the defendants in a class action lawsuit alleging unpaid overtime and other California labor law violations.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege the owners of Lincoln Millennium Car Wash, at 2454 Lincoln Blvd. in Venice; Santa Monica Car Wash, at 2510 Pico Blvd. in Santa Monica; and Bumble Bee Car Wash, at 2711 Del Amo Blvd. in Lakewood required workers to arrive at the facilities early, yet allowed them to formally clock in only when there were sufficient cars to wash.
Allegations include the denial of proper lunch and water breaks.
Plaintiffs are buoyed by previous settlements, which have favored workers in their California overtime law disputes with operators. The most recent was this past January when a settlement was announced by California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris benefitting workers employed at a collection of eight car wash facilities peppered throughout the state.
Akin to the current action, defendants were alleged to have denied workers meal breaks and rest periods, falsified payment records, and engaged in the non-payment of overtime. The settlement was worth $1 million.
Various efforts have been undertaken to enforce overtime pay laws and other labor statutes in the car wash industry, a sector that leans towards the employment of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. With fierce competition and diminished profit margins, many owners attempt to increase their already meager profits through the exploitation of their workers.
The lawsuit was filed May 21 in LA County Superior Court. Spokesperson for the plaintiffs Marcial Hernandez revealed he had toiled at Lincoln Millennium Car Wash for eight years prior to resigning, often working as many as 50 hours but paid for only 40. Adhering to overtime laws was never part of the equation. "(The owners) often insult you to get you to work faster," he said.
Municipal Statute Does Not Violate California Labor Law: Ruling
At issue is 'Measure L,' a statute voted on in 2010 by the voters of Menlo Park which gave taxpayers a voice they might not of otherwise had in the debate over pension issues related to City employees. According to the Palo Alto Daily News (5/9/12), Measure L raises the retirement age of new City employees by five years from 55 to 60, and caps pension payouts to two percent of the highest base salary earned over three consecutive years, multiplied by years of service.
That's down from 2.7 percent, which grandfathered employees??"City staff hired prior to Measure L coming into effect??"are not affected by. Police officers are also not impacted to the new measures.
Unions representing affected Menlo Park employees cried foul, citing violations to California labor code. They responded with a California labor lawsuit, and on May 4 Superior Court Judge George Miram ruled in favor of the measure after hearing arguments from both sides.
The right to unencumbered collective bargaining is a right entrenched in California and labor law. To that end, two of the unions representing Menlo Park employees??"Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)??"claimed Measure L compromises that right, suggesting the capacity for voters to impact issues related to employee compensation is illegal when, in the union's view, only City Council has the authority to do so.
In his nine-page opinion on the California Labor employment law issue, Judge Miram disagreed with the union's contention that Measure L constrained the ability for elected council officials to bargain with unions in good faith. "The city continues to have the duty to negotiate in good faith, albeit within the constraints provided by Measure L," he wrote.
The unions which launched the California employee labor lawsuit expressed disappointment in the ruling, stating: "SEIU and AFSCME stand by our opinion that workers rights that are protected by the state Constitution shouldn't be subject to the whims of political currents."
The State of California has suffered from numerous budget woes over the last several years, and has sought concessions from unions and state employees to help with the fiscal pressure. Presumably, municipalities also feel the pinch and look for ways to economize within the confines of the California labor code.
To this end, Measure L falls within the municipality's rights, according to the ruling, under California state labor laws. It is not known if the unions plan to appeal.
About . TOS . Privacy . Disclaimer . Contact . Advertise . Member Login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License ©2026 Online Legal Media. All rights reserved.
Visit other Online Legal Media Websites:
