Summary of Closed Litigation Cases
CITY FILED LOSING LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DCAA IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OVER MAYOR’S INITIATIVE
Lawsuit Warned of “McCarthy-era” PERB Hearing if Stay Not Granted
The City of San Diego filed a lawsuit with the California Supreme Court against the Deputy City Attorneys Association and three other City unions. In the lawsuit, the City requested a stay of a trial scheduled to commence before an administrative law judge of the Public Employees Relations Board (“PERB”). The administrative law judge is tasked with adjudicating the merits of the unions’ unfair labor practice charges filed with PERB.
DCAA and its sister unions contend that Mayor Jerry Sanders and City officials violated state law when they refused to meet and confer over the terms of the Mayor’s ballot initiative, Proposition B, which the voters passed on the June 5. The unions subpoenaed the Mayor, his Chief of Staff, the City’s labor negotiators, and other officials to testify at a PERB trial, which concluded in July.
Proposition B, if permitted to stand, will freeze all City employee salaries for six years and will force all new City hires, except for police officers, be placed in a 401(k)-type defined contribution plan, rather than the City’s current defined benefit plan. It will also require that current City employees make “substantially equal” contributions towards their pension plan.
The City’s legal move followed three major setbacks by the City in defending the Mayor’s ballot initiative. First, the California Supreme Court denied a petition and a request for a stay of the PERB proceedings filed by April Boling and two other supporters of the Mayor’s initiative. The City also lost a motion for rehearing of a published decision by the local Court of Appeal, which determined that Superior Court Judge Luis Vargas erred when he granted the City’s request for a stay of the PERB trial, which was originally scheduled to take place in April. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision, Judge Vargas vacated the stay, which led to the scheduling of the July PERB trial.
In its lawsuit, the City once again demanded that the pending PERB proceedings be stayed. In its writ petition, the City warned, “Absent this Court stepping in to stop the PERB administrative hearings, PERB and the unions will have the power to conduct McCarthy-era type hearings into determining who supported the CPRI [Proposition B], their reasons for the support, who said what to whom, what did certain individuals ‘really’ believe about the initiative, etc.” A copy of the City’s petition can be accessed by clicking the following link: City’s Petition to the California Supreme Court .
On July 13, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and denied the application for stay. See Supreme Court Denial of City’s Writ. For additional information on the status of the PERB case, please go to the “Active Litigation” page of this website.
SUPPORTERS OF MAYOR’S CHARTER INITIATIVE UNSUCCESSFULLY DEMANDED THAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HALT PERB’S INQUIRY INTO DCAA’S UNFAIR LABOR CHARGE
The local Court of Appeal summarily denied the City of San Diego’s petition to stop the Public Employees Relations Board (“PERB”) from adjudicating whether Mayor Jerry Sanders and other officials violated state law when they refused to meet and confer with public unions over the Mayor’s Charter-amendment initiative, Proposition B. The City sought to have the Court of Appeal decide all challenges to the Charter amendment. PERB conducted a hearing into the matter in July.
Proposition B, if permitted to stand, will freeze all City employee salaries for six years and will force all new City hires, except for police officers, into a 401(k) defined contribution plan, rather than the City’s current defined benefit contribution plan. It will also require that current City employees make “substantially equal” contributions towards their pension plan.
Unhappy with the Court of Appeal’s decision, three prominent supporters of the Mayor’s initiative, April Boling, T.J. Lane, and Stephen Williams, filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. In their petition, Petitioners demanded an immediate stay of the PERB administrative hearings on unfair labor charges filed by the DCAA and three sister unions against the City. Boling, Zane and Williams claimed that PERB cannot be fair and if the PERB hearings proceed, elected City officials, at taxpayer expense, will be forced to seek protective orders from subpoenas on First Amendment privilege grounds.
The DCAA filed its answer to the Boling petition, which is included below along with answers filed by PERB and other unions. On July 11, 2012, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the Boling petition. Below are links to copies of the Supreme Court filings.
- City’s Petition for Writ of Mandate to Court of Appeal
- April Boling’s Petition for Review to California Supreme Court
- Supreme Court’s Request of DCAA for Response to Petition
- DCAA’s Answer to Boling Petition
- MEA’s Answer to Boling Petition
- MEA’s Request for Judicial Notice
- Firefighters’ Answer to Boling Petition
- Local 127’s (AFSCME) Answer to Boling Petition
- PERB’s Answer to Boling Petition
- Boling Reply to Unions’ Answers
THE UNSUCCESSFUL 05-07 RETIREE MEDICAL HEALTH BENEFITS APPEAL
The San Diego City Council passed an ordinance, effective February 17, 2007, which retroactively took away retiree medical health benefits and other pension benefits from employee hired between July 1, 2005 and February 17, 2007. In the San Diego Superior Court, the City of San Diego sued 966 employees who were hired during that time frame in a “defense Class Action” lawsuit. The case was assigned to Judge Jeffrey Barton.
Judge Barton certified the Class Action into two sub-classes. Sub-Class A consisted of all of the affected employees who were represented by a union, including Deputy City Attorneys. The Class Representative was Benjamin Vernon. Sub-class B consisted of all of the affected employees who were not represented by a union. The Class Representative was Richard Haas.
Judge Barton found that “each employee has a due process interest in protecting his or her retirement benefits” but ultimately ruled in favor of the City by declaring the ordinance valid. The case is now on appeal before the California Court of Appeal in San Diego. The fate of retiree medical benefits and other pension benefits for many Deputy City Attorneys remains in the balance.
In the appeal, the affected employees argued that the City impaired their contractual rights by taking away vested retiree medical health and other pension benefits. Another issue in the appeal was whether the attorney representing Sub-Class A had a conflict of interest in representing the entire Sub-Class. The DCAA filed an amicus brief in the appeal in support of those Members who were named as Sub-Class A Defendants in the lawsuit.
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal found for the City in the 05-07 retiree medical health benefits appeal. The appellate court agreed with the City that the benefits could be retroactively taken away because the unions agreed to the elimination of these benefits before the employees were hired. The fact the ordinance eliminating the benefits was passed 18 months after the unions agreed to their elimination, the appellate court held, did not violate the affected employees’ constitutional rights. A copy of this appellate decision is provided here: COA Opinion re 05-07 Retiree Medical Health Benefits Appeal.
The decision is now final because Class Counsel failed to seek review by the California Supreme Court.