Public Information & Announcements

The following list of candidates has been certified as the official list of nominees for the 2010 CASE Board of Directors election.

The candidates' names are currently listed in alphabetical order. The order of the candidates on the official ballot will be determined by drawing lots. The drawing will occur on Saturday, September 25, 2010, at the CASE Board of Directors Meeting in Sacramento, California.

If you have any questions related to the upcoming election, please direct them to info@calattorneys.org.

2010 NOMINEES FOR EVEN-YEAR DIRECTOR AT LARGE SEAT

Jarhett Blonien
Deputy Attorney General
Justice
Sacramento

Regina Brown
Administrative Law Judge II
SPB
Oakland

Eileen Deimerly
Administrative Law Judge I
SPB
Sacramento

Glen Grossman (Incumbent)
Staff Counsel III
SCIF
Salinas

Jennifer Jadovitz (Incumbent)
Deputy Attorney General III
DOJ
San Diego

Geoffrey Lauter (Incumbent)
Deputy Attorney General IV
DOJ
San Francisco

Margery Melvin
Deputy Commissioner
Dept. of Corrections (BPH)
San Francisco

Stacy Schwartz (Incumbent)
Deputy Attorney General III
DOJ
Los Angeles

Anthony Seferian (Incumbent)
Deputy Attorney General III
DOJ
Sacramento

Geoffrey Sims (Incumbent)
Staff Counsel III
SCIF
Fresno

Ralph Sivilla (Incumbent)
Deputy Attorney General IV
DOJ
San Francisco

Clara Slifkin
Administrative Law Judge II
OAH
Van Nuys

Dear Member of Bargaining Unit 2:

As you are likely aware, yesterday the California Supreme Court granted the petition for review filed by the Department of Personnel Administration in our Alameda furlough litigation. The Court's order reads:

The petition for review is GRANTED. Because the issue whether the Governor has the authority to direct the unpaid furlough of state employees is pending before this court and is scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, September 8, 2010, in the related case of Professional Engineers in California Government et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger et. al., S183411, and without expressing any view on the merits of that issue, we conclude that it is appropriate to grant review in this matter and defer further action pending our resolution of the currently pending proceeding. Pending further order of this court, further proceedings in the Alameda County Superior Court in case number RG10494800 (and in consolidated cases numbered RG10507922, RG10507081, RGI0503805, RGI0501997, RGI0516259, RGI0514694, and RG10528855), as well as the temporary restraining order of the Alameda County Superior Court issued on August 9, 2010, are stayed. Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.

Given the Court's order, all members of Bargaining Unit 2 who work in departments that are subject to furloughs should check with their supervisors to determine whether they are required to report to work on Friday.

The California Supreme Court will hear oral argument regarding the Governor's ability to unilaterally impose furloughs on September 8, 2010. CASE will continue to keep you informed as this situation develops.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Dear Member of Bargaining Unit 2:

Last week, the CASE litigation team solicited assistance from members of Bargaining Unit 2 in generating declarations to submit to the Alameda County Superior Court regarding the impact of the furloughs. That prior request is available on the CASE website, and contains a sample declaration for your reference. You may click the link below to view the prior request for member declarations. You may also click the link below to view the sample declaration.

In response to our request, we have received a number of questions not addressed in our prior e-mail. Please note the following:

* Member declarations are needed for our moving papers, which are due this Friday (August 20, 2010).

* Any member of Bargaining Unit 2 may submit a declaration, even if you were not originally subject to the last round of furloughs. You can still explain how the most recent furlough order would impact you and your department if they were to be implemented.

* The trial court has indicated that it is specifically interested in the actual and potential impact of furloughs on the State's ability to carry out its various missions. If you can offer specific examples of how the furloughs have, or would, impact the mission of your office and the delivery of services, please share that information with us.

* While more detail is always preferable, you do not need to turn your life into an open book if you are not comfortable doing so. Any description of the impact on your finances will be helpful.

Please submit your declarations as soon as possible via e-mail to litigation@calattorneys.org, or by facsimile to (916) 669-4199. All declarations will be forwarded to the CASE legal team for evaluation, possible follow-up, and inclusion in our next round of filings. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

The CASE litigation team is soliciting assistance from members of Bargaining Unit 2 in order to provide information to the court regarding the impact of furloughs. Specifically, we are asking members to submit declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, to CASE for submission to the Alameda County Superior Court. Please note that the state may not discipline any member of Bargaining Unit 2 who chooses to submit a truthful declaration. Any member of Bargaining Unit 2 who submits a truthful declaration and suffers any sort of reprisal for helping the court ascertain the truth will be vigorously defended by CASE.

Our litigation team would like the declarations to focus on two areas. First, in an effort to show irreparable injury, we would like you to explain your own personal financial situation, the impacts the previous round of furloughs had on you and your family, and the impact that additional furloughs would have. Second, we need competent evidence based on your own personal knowledge regarding how the furloughs have impacted your department or agency. We are looking for both a description of the principal mission of your agency and concrete examples of how your mission was impaired during the furloughs. Specific examples in which members of the public were harmed would obviously be helpful to us in making the requisite showing. Also, statistical information about delays in case processing, increased caseloads, backlogs, etc. would be useful. Descriptions of how "floating furloughs" impacted productivity may also be helpful.

As a legal professional, you already know that declarations are submitted under penalty of perjury, and accordingly, must be truthful and accurate. Also, please be aware that your declaration may become a matter of public record.

Below please find a sample declaration, which should be used merely as a guide. Obviously, your own declaration will be different, as it will reflect your own personal circumstances. Please ensure that your declaration contains the requisite information regarding date and location of execution as prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5.

If you are willing to complete a declaration, please submit a signed PDF version via e-mail to litigation@calttorneys.org, or by facsimile to (916) 669-4199. All declarations will be forwarded to the CASE legal team for evaluation, possible follow-up, and inclusion in our next round of filings. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Dear Member of Bargaining Unit 2:

On Monday, August 9, 2010, the CASE legal team, led by General Counsel Patrick Whalen, appeared before the Honorable Steven A. Brick of the Alameda County Superior Court for a hearing on our request for a temporary restraining order enjoining the upcoming furloughs of CASE employees.

The hearing was scheduled pursuant to CASE's initial ex parte application, which was filed on August 3, 2010, and continued to this date so that the other Petitioners/Plaintiffs would have an opportunity to decide whether to join in CASE's application or file their own, and so that Respondents would have an opportunity to file papers in opposition.

Within the last week, several other unions also elected to file requests for a TRO, and eight different cases challenging the furloughs were consolidated. After more than two hours of oral argument and questioning earlier this morning, Judge Brick took the matter under submission.

At approximately 7:15 p.m., Judge Brick released his order, which enjoins and restrains the Governor, DPA, and the Controller from implementing the provisions of the Governor's Executive Order of July 28, 2010, insofar as they require furloughs of CASE members and the members of the other unions involved in this litigation. A copy of the court's order is available on this website by clicking on the link below.

It is presently unclear whether DPA will seek appellate review of the TRO, or will simply wait and oppose our request for a preliminary injunction. If DPA does not appeal, or if their appeal is unsuccessful, our members will not suffer furloughs pending our request for a preliminary injunction. The hearing for a preliminary injunction is presently set for September 13, 2010.

In an effort to make a proper evidentiary showing at that hearing, CASE will be soliciting information from the members of Bargaining Unit 2 in the next few days regarding the impact the furloughs have had and would have on their financial obligations if implemented.

This is an evolving situation. CASE will keep you informed via e-mail and updates to this website. In the meantime, please direct any specific questions to info@calattorneys.org.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Dear Member of Bargaining Unit 2:

CASE has been noticed that the Department of Personnel Administration ("DPA") will be submitting a proposal to the State Personnel Board to change the Staff Counsel Series. This is the statewide classification for all attorney, administrative law judge, and hearing officer classifications. Therefore, even if you are not in the Staff Counsel series it could impact you if, in the future, your department placed you on an SROA list, as this is the classification you would be placed in. As such, CASE is seeking your input on the proposal in order to formulate our response. CASE's response to DPA is due by Friday, August 13th. If you have any comments, please submit them to Monica Miner, CASE Labor Relations Representative at mminer@calattorneys.org, by 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 10th.

The following are the major changes to the Staff Counsel series:
* Changes the Staff Counsel I to Attorney I
* Changes Staff Counsel III (Specialist) to Attorney II
* Changes Staff Counsel IV to Attorney III
* Changes Staff Counsel III (Supervisor) to Supervising Attorney
* Requires a one year probation for Staff Counsel III/Attorney II and Staff Counsel IV/Attorney III
* Includes judicial clerkship experience after being admitted to the Bar as legal experience
* Changes the Alternate Range Criteria to provide equal weight to all legal experience when placing an attorney in the Ranges. This change will provide consistency with the recently revised Deputy Attorney General and Tax Counsel series. This is in response to the Weisman decision in which a former Tax Counsel sued the Franchise Tax Board and the State Personnel Board because his legal work outside of state service was not provided full weight when he was trying to promote through the ranges and promote to a Tax Counsel III
* Staff Counsel III (Supervisor)/Supervising Attorney will only be able to supervise Staff Counsel/Attorney I. Currently, there are some departments, such as SCIF, that allow a Staff Counsel III(Supervisor)/Supervising Attorney to supervise Staff Counsel III (Specialist)/Attorney II. SCIF employs the most Staff Counsels. Other departments utilize an Assistant Chief Counsel to supervise Staff Counsel III (Specialists)/Attorney II and Staff Counsel IV/Attorney III.

You may view the current and proposed specifications by clicking on the links below.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Dear Member of Bargaining Unit 2:

Earlier today, CASE filed unfair labor practice ("ULP") charges against Governor Schwarzenegger and the Department of Personnel Administration ("DPA") with the Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB").  In our ULP, CASE alleges that Governor Schwarzenegger has engaged in bad faith bargaining, violated White v. Davis by agreeing to pay salaries of employees in bargaining units with tentative agreements even though no budget appropriation exists for those units, and has sought to unilaterally change the working conditions of Unit 2 employees.  A copy of the ULP is available by clicking on the link below. 

In related news, on Monday DPA filed an ex parte motion to intervene in CASE's San Francisco litigation, which seeks to enjoin the State Controller from complying with Governor Schwarzenegger's defective minimum wage/no wage pay letter.  Judge Busch of the San Francisco Superior Court denied the ex parte application without prejudice, and directed DPA to resubmit its request to intervene via a noticed motion.  As of today, DPA has not renewed its request to intervene in the San Francisco litigation. 

As you may be aware, one of the claims raised in our San Francisco case is that the Governor's pay letter fails to recognize that our members who are employed in continuously-appropriated departments, boards, or agencies have a statutory right to receive pay, regardless of whether the Legislature has passed a budget.  Presently, we are aware of CASE members working in the following departments, boards, and agencies with continuous budget appropriations:

* California Earthquake Authority (Cal. Ins. Code, § 10089.22)
* California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Cal. Const., Art. 35)
* California Prison Industry Authority (Cal. Penal Code, § 2806)
* Department of Water Resources (Cal. Water Code, § 80200)
* Fair Political Practices Committee (Cal. Gov. Code, § 83122)
* State Water Resources Control Board (Cal. Water Code, § 13477)

If you work in a department, board, or agency that has a continuing appropriation, we request that you immediately contact CASE at info@calattorneys.org with the name of your department and a citation to the statutory authority that creates the continuing budget appropriation.  Please note that the so-called "special fund" agencies do not always have continuing appropriations, as agencies that operate from special funds (generally) also require an annual budget appropriation.  What we are looking for is information establishing that your department, board, or agency receives its funding regardless of whether the Legislature has passed an annual budget.

Presently, CASE is unaware of anything that will prevent the State Controller's Office from issuing full paychecks for the July pay period on August 1, 2010.  We will, of course, continue to closely monitor the situation and will keep you informed via e-mail and updates to this website.  In the meantime, please direct any specific questions to info@calattorneys.org.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Dear CASE Member:

CASE will be conducting its annual Board of Directors election this fall. Seven even-year director-at-large positions are up for election. (Those elected to these positions will serve two-year terms, and stand for reelection during even-numbered years.)

Members and potential candidates should be aware of the following important information about the election process and schedule:

August 27, 2010
Original nomination petitions due at the CASE Office by 5:00 p.m. No facsimile copies will be accepted. Nomination petitions must have at least five valid signatures from active CASE members. It is the candidate's responsibility to ensure that those signing his or her nomination petition are active CASE members. You may call the CASE office at (800) 699-6533 to verify the membership status of those signing your nomination petition.

August 31, 2010
Last day for any candidate to withdraw from election and not have his or her name appear on ballot.

August 31, 2010
Last day for fair share members of Bargaining Unit 2 to become CASE members with voting privileges. (See CASE Bylaws, Article III, section 3.15.)

September 1, 2010
List of eligible candidates to be published on this website by the CASE Elections Oversight Committee.

September 17, 2010
Candidate statements (optional) due at CASE Office by 5:00 p.m. No exceptions will be made for late submissions.

October 1, 2010
Ballots and candidate statements mailed to membership.

November 5, 2010
Ballots counted at CASE Office in Sacramento, California, by an independent elections company. Note: Only ballots received by 5:00 p.m. on November 4, 2010, at the designated post office box will be counted. Ballots received on or after November 5, 2010, will not be counted.

Nominations may be submitted anytime between now and Friday, August 27, 2010. To become a candidate, you must submit a nomination petition or letter to the CASE Office by August 27, 2010, declaring your interest along with the signatures of five active CASE members in good standing who support your candidacy. Your petition or letter must include your name, department, classification, home and work addresses, phone numbers, e-mail address, and signature. The five active CASE members who support your nomination should each provide their name, department, classification, home and work address, phone numbers, e-mail address, and signature. Nomination petitions are available by clicking on the link below, or by calling (800) 699-6533. Please note that fax filings will not be accepted.

Only active, rank-and-file members of CASE who are in good standing are eligible to stand for election to the Board of Directors. This includes all CASE members, with the exception of those who are designated as retired annuitants, confidential, managers and supervisors. Fair share members of Bargaining Unit 2 are ineligible to run for or serve on the Board of Directors. However, any fair share member who wishes to stand for election may become a member of CASE prior to August 31, 2010, and still be eligible to run in this election.

Candidates are permitted to submit a campaign statement to CASE, which will be mailed with the ballots to all CASE members. The deadline for submitting this statement is Friday, September 17, 2010. Although limited to one side of a single 8½ x 11 sheet of paper, there is no word limit, so you may design the statement as you prefer. Any libelous statements contained in a candidate's campaign statement will be edited or removed.

If you have any questions about the election, please contact the CASE office at (800) 699-6533 or elections@calattorneys.org.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Dear Member of Bargaining Unit 2:

Earlier today, CASE filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the San Francisco County Superior Court, naming Controller John Chiang, the State Compensation Insurance Fund, and Does 1-100 as defendants. Our suit seeks to enjoin the Controller from implementing the pay letter issued by Governor Schwarzenegger which would reduce the pay of CASE members to the federal minimum wage, or in many cases, zero.

Our lawsuit alleges that Governor Schwarzenegger's pay letter is unlawful in several respects, including the fact that it seeks to exempt from its coverage those bargaining units that have already reached tentative agreements with the administration, the fact that the pay letter violates principles of equal protection, and the fact that the pay letter fails to exempt employees paid out of continuously appropriated funds (like those CASE members at State Fund), both of which are in direct contravention of the California Supreme Court's decision in White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528. We believe our lawsuit raises the best legal theories to protect all CASE members from the threat of reduced or no wages.

CASE will be collecting additional information, through discovery and other means, to establish a comprehensive list of departments, boards, and agencies that employ Unit 2 members in positions funded by continuous appropriations. If your position or department is funded by a continuous appropriation, please contact the CASE office at info@calattorneys.org. Please note that there is a significant distinction between the so-called "special funds" and continuously appropriated funds, as even most special funds still need to be appropriated on an annual basis.

Regarding the lawsuit between Controller Chiang and DPA currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court, CASE is aware that a number of other unions have filed papers seeking to intervene in that action. The Governor has opposed the intervention. CASE is not a party to the Sacramento lawsuit, and has not sought to intervene. However, we are monitoring the Sacramento litigation closely to the extent it may impact CASE members. CASE decided to file a separate lawsuit because we anticipated that the Governor might oppose an effort to intervene in that litigation, but more importantly, because we are raising distinct causes of action involving different defendants than those involved in the Sacramento litigation. Accordingly, we felt that a separate action was warranted. Based on the location of our named defendants, San Francisco was the most appropriate venue.

Copies of the CASE pleadings are available for your review by clicking on the links below.  You may find copies of the pleadings filed by the Controller in the Sacramento litigation on the Controller's website (www.sco.ca.gov).

This is a rapidly-evolving situation. CASE will provide updates via e-mail and on this website as additional information becomes available. In the meantime, if you have any specific questions or concerns, please send them to info@calattorneys.org.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Dear Bargaining Unit 2 Member:

As you are likely aware, last night Governor Schwarzenegger issued a no wage/minimum wage order, and directed the State Controller's Office to reduce or withhold the pay of most state employees until a budget is passed. Because most of the members of Bargaining Unit 2 are exempt from the provisions of the FLSA, this order would mean that most of our members would receive no pay until a state budget is passed, a process which in the past has taken months.

Notably, the Governor has exempted from his no wage/minimum wage order each of the six bargaining units that have already entered into tentative agreements with the administration. This action is completely improper, and makes clear how this administration has chosen to coerce state employees by first threatening, and now taking steps, to withhold their rightfully-earned pay until they agree to unfavorable contracts. Indeed, under his own interpretation of the White v. Davis case, the Governor has no authority to selectively authorize or withhold pay from state employees.

It remains unclear whether state employees will still receive paychecks on August 1st for work performed during the July pay period. However, in response to the Governor's no wage/minimum wage order, State Controller John Chiang stated that "absent a final court ruling, I will continue to protect the State's finances and pay full wages by state employees." CASE thanks State Controller Chiang for his leadership and courage in the face of the unfair, unethical, and unlawful position taken by the Schwarzenegger administration.

Earlier today, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a published opinion in the minimum wage case argued last month. That opinion is available for your review by clicking on the link below.  The thrust of the Court of Appeal's opinion concerns the power of DPA to issue pay letters, and the extent of the Controller's obligation to follow them. The decision expressly did not pass on the legality of the particular pay letter that was issued in 2008. As a result, we are encouraged by several passages in the opinion.

On page 21, of the opinion, the Court makes clear that "The declaration that the Controller follow the law does not preclude the parties from disputing the meaning or application of White v. Davis in connection with any future pay letter." Later, on page 39 of the opinion, the Court states expressly "we need not address the [2008] pay letter's categories because the pay letter is moot, and we will not speculate on the content of any future pay letter." We view these two passages as making clear that the court is not expressing any opinion whatsoever on the most recent pay letter issued by the Schwarzenegger administration.

Moreover, we believe that the opinion gives the Controller the clear authority to challenge the most recent pay letter. On page 30, the Court reaffirmed that "the Controller's duty to audit claims against the Treasury includes the duty to ensure that expenditures are authorized by law. . . ." On page 33, the court observed that "the Controller has authority to refuse to expend state money for unlawful claims." (Emphasis in original.) At the bottom of page 24, the Court spells out the procedure the Controller should follow: "If the Controller believed DPA's pay letter violated the law, the Controller should have initiated judicial resolution of the dispute rather than simply disregarding the pay letter."

As many of our members have noted, the Governor's attempt to exempt from the pay letter the six units that have reached tentative agreements is a clear violation of White v. Davis, even under the Governor's interpretation of that case. Accordingly, the pay letter issued yesterday by the Schwarzenegger administration is illegal on its face, and is subject to challenge in the courts. CASE is coordinating with representatives from the other bargaining units, and is considering all appropriate avenues and legal strategies to prevent the application of this patently illegal pay letter.

Obviously, this is a rapidly-evolving situation. As more information becomes available, we will keep you informed via e-mail and updates on this website. In the meantime, please direct any questions or comments to info@calattorneys.org.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Dear Member of Bargaining Unit 2:

In a continuing effort to keep you as informed as possible, we have the following update regarding bargaining and the no wage/minimum wage issue.

Bargaining

As you are likely aware, 6 of California's 21 Bargaining Units have tentatively agreed to contracts that require their members to contribute an additional 5% of their monthly paycheck to their pension (essentially doubling their current contributions), and require their members to take one furlough day per month for 12 months (although it has been relabeled as an "unpaid personal leave day"). In addition, the deals call for dramatically reduced pension benefits for future employees. Two of the deals require employees to contribute an extra one-half of one percent to fund retiree health benefits. One of the deals extends the retiree health vesting period from 20 years to 25 years. These concessions purport to give the state budgetary savings for FY 2010-2011, but in reality they offer no significant long-term savings for at least 30 years, when the new hires start to retire under the new, substantially reduced pension plans.

In exchange for these concessions, the deals call for a raise in the top step of all classes during the second year of the contract, which effectively means everyone will get a raise, but not immediately. Depending on individual anniversary dates and promotion patterns, it could be months to several years before some members actually benefit from this step increase.

The deals also come with a "commitment" from the Administration that their members will not be subject to additional furloughs during the term of the deal, nor would they be subjected to the threat of minimum wage. However we have heard that these commitments are not actually contained within the four corners of the tentative contracts. While we are working on obtaining the actual text of the tentative deals, these "commitments" raise a number of questions, including:

1) How can an outgoing Governor assure employees that his successor will not try to furlough employees if next year's budget situation is no better than this year's?

2) How can the Governor assure individual units that they will not be subjected to minimum wage/no wage? Under the Governor's legal theory, White v. Davis prohibits any payment to state employees without an appropriation. In the absence of a budget for FY 2010-2011, there is no legal authority for the Governor to single out particular groups of state employees to be exempt from his minimum wage threat.

3) Given the Legislature's historical aversion of continuing appropriation legislation, what assurances do the units with tentative agreements have that the continuing appropriation bills promised by the Governor will not be significantly delayed or even defeated in the Legislature?

Our Bargaining Team will continue to negotiate with DPA in an effort to reach an acceptable deal for CASE members. We recently surveyed all voting members as to whether they would accept a deal similar to the ones described above, and the result was a rather overwhelming "no." Initially, 69% of all eligible voting CASE members responded to the survey. Of those voting members, 59.1% stated they would reject a similar deal, while 40.9% indicated they would ratify such a deal. Given this mandate, the Bargaining Team will continue to negotiate in an effort to reach a deal that is fair and reasonable for our members, that addresses important non-economic issues (such as the CUIAB side letter agreement), and which has a reasonable likelihood of being ratified by our members.

No Wage/Minimum Wage

As mentioned above, there is the possibility that the Governor may direct the Controller to implement minimum wage or no wage if the budget impasse does not get resolved shortly, which is unlikely. The Controller has publicly stated he will defy such an order because it is illegal. While our members should have received their June paycheck, it is possible that pay for the July pay period (issued on August 1) could be in jeopardy if the Controller decides to comply with the Governor's order, or if a court forces him to do so. Members are advised that some credit unions have offered to extend no-interest loans to state employees who are current members. CASE is also working with other unions to persuade CalPERS to make short term loans available to its members. We will keep you advised on the progress of those discussions.

Now that we are in a new fiscal year, events are likely to become very fluid and unpredictable. CASE will continue to keep you informed, and will provide information as it becomes available. In the meantime, if you have any specific questions or comments, please direct them to info@calattorneys.org.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Litigation Update

We are still awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeal in the no wage/minimum wage case. Because most of our members are attorneys, the Governor's threat to issue minimum wage pay letters is really one to issue no wage pay letters, as most of our members are exempt from the FLSA. That case is pending in the Third Appellate District, and is case number C061947.

In the past two weeks, we have filed numerous briefs in our various furlough lawsuits.

* On June 17, 2010, we filed the Respondent's Brief in the "Special Fund" furlough appeal. That case is pending in the First Appellate District, and is case number A127777. The Governor has until July 7, 2010, to file a reply brief, at which time the case will be fully briefed and ready for oral argument. That brief is available by clicking on the link below.

* On June 23, 2010, we filed a supplemental letter brief in the California Supreme Court in response to that Court's request for briefing on two issues. This case is the first furlough case out of Judge Marlette's court in Sacramento. It was fully briefed in the Third Appellate District until the Supreme Court, on its own motion, transferred the case to itself, where it is pending as case number S183411. That supplemental letter brief is available by clicking on the link below.

* On June 29, 2010, we filed our Brief on the Merits in the California Supreme Court in the SCIF furlough appeal, case number S182581. This is the case in which the Governor failed to file a timely petition for review, but then subsequently sent a letter to the Court asking them to review the case on their own motion, which they did. The Governor has until July 9, 2010, to file a reply, after which the case will be fully briefed. That brief is available by clicking on the link below.

* On June 30, 2010, we filed our supplemental reply brief in the first furlough case (S183411, described above). That case is now fully briefed and awaiting oral argument. That brief is available by clicking on the link below.

We do not yet know when the California Supreme Court will schedule oral argument. Despite their relatively short briefing schedules in the two furlough cases before them, they typically have a summer recess, and there are presently no oral argument dates scheduled until September (although that could change). Similarly, we have not yet been notified by the First Appellate District when they might schedule argument in the Special Fund appeal. It remains possible that the California Supreme Court might transfer that case to itself as well.

While these various cases challenge the Governor's authority to furlough employees, the Governor has recently stated that furloughs remain an option in the event of a budget impasse, despite multiple previous statements from his Administration acknowledging that furloughs would likely not be imposed after June 30, 2010. Thus, while it appears our members will be back to a regular full schedule (and full pay) for the month of July, the specter of furloughs being ordered again still looms. CASE will continue to oppose the unilateral imposition of furloughs, now and in the future.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors