Public Information & Announcements

Dear Bargaining Unit 2 Colleague:

Today CASE will be filing a motion to lift the stay in the Alameda "special fund" litigation. While CASE had originally planned to file the motion earlier this week, we delayed doing so in order to obtain a stipulation from all parties for an expedited hearing on this matter. Because we were able to secure this stipulation, the hearing will take place on March 23, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in the Alameda County Superior Court. The various pleadings that will be filed today, including the joint stipulation, are attached to this e-mail. It is CASE's goal to persuade Judge Roesch to immediately stop the furloughs - which he has already determined are illegal - and to direct the Controller to restore all wages wrongfully withheld as a result of the illegal furloughs.

In related news, you may have heard that the Governor is seeking to consolidate a number of furlough cases and transfer them to the California Supreme Court. Please note that the appeal in the SCIF furlough matter is not among those identified for consolidation. As a result, the oral argument in the SCIF appeal will go forward as planned on March 10, 2010, in the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. With regard to the Governor's consolidation petition in the California Supreme Court, the Rules of Court permit any party to respond to such a petition within 20 days. CASE will update you as soon as we have filed our response.

Please check the CASE website (www.calattorneys.org) for updates. If you have any specific questions, you may 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

Dear Member of Bargaining Unit 2:

This afternoon, CASE filed its supplemental letter brief in the appeal of Judge Marlette's ruling on furloughs out of Sacramento. CASE wants to express its sincere appreciation for the dozens of members who reviewed the court's questions in the order directing supplemental briefing, and who took the time to forward helpful legal strategies, arguments, and suggestions. The members of Bargaining Unit 2 are some of the best lawyers in the State of California. It is an honor and privilege to have our members working alongside us as we fight to protect our jobs, salaries, and rights.

While we can't individually thank each member who responded, many of you will likely see your ideas embodied in our brief. The Governor has 30 days within which to file a responsive letter brief, after which CASE will get 20 days to file a reply. At that point, we anticipate briefing will be completed and the matter can thereafter be set for oral argument.

Thank you again for your contributions. Our letter brief is attached to this e-mail, and is also available online at www.calattorneys.org.

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

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Late this afternoon, the Honorable Frank Roesch of the Alameda County Superior Court entered judgment in the Alameda "special fund" furlough cases directing that all salaries unlawfully withheld from CASE members be immediately restored to them, and that the furloughs must immediately cease.

As you may know, the Governor has previously vowed to appeal the furlough cases to the Supreme Court, and we presume that the Governor will seek to appeal this judgment and stay its effect. CASE has already prepared arguments to the effect that this judgment is not subject to a stay, and that in any event, that the stay should be lifted pending appeal. CASE stands ready to file these argument as soon as it becomes necessary to do so.

CASE will continue to do everything in its power to ensure that the already low salaries of our members are not further reduced by way of the unlawful furloughs. The Order After Hearing and Judgment are available by clicking on the links below.

This is a developing situation. Please check back for updates, which will be posted as additional information becomes available.

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

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Dear Bargaining Unit 2 Colleague:

As you will recall, on December 31, 2009, Judge Frank Roesch of the Alameda County Superior Court ruled that work furloughs unilaterally imposed by Governor Schwarzenegger against the majority of CASE employees were illegal under Government Code sections 19851 and 16310. Earlier today, CASE appeared in Alameda County Superior Court at a hearing regarding the order previously submitted to the court, which will formalize the court's December 31, 2009, ruling.

At issue today was whether the court should order the State of California to restore the unlawfully withheld salaries to employees who had their pay reduced as a result of the illegal furloughs. Additionally, the court asked questions regarding the scope of the order, specifically inquiring whether it should apply to employees who work at departments not named in the litigation, and whether all employees in a given agency should be relieved of the illegal furloughs, even if they are employed in positions that are not represented by the unions who brought the lawsuits (e.g., employees in management positions).

After approximately one hour of oral argument, the court took the matter under submission and stated that a ruling would issue within one week.

Regardless of the ultimate phrasing of the final judgment, DPA will almost certainly appeal. In an effort to ensure our members get the benefit of the judgment as soon as possible, CASE is already prepared to file a motion to lift any stay that may be occasioned by the filing of the appeal.

We will keep you updated as to the status of this litigation and other issues affecting Unit 2 members as information becomes available. Please check the CASE website (www.calattorneys.org) for updates.

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

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

Dear Unit 2 Member:

As you are likely aware from the Governor's recent press conference and its associated media coverage, the administration has set forth certain concepts that purport to address California's budget deficit. These concepts include many draconian cuts to state employee compensation.

Earlier today, the CASE Bargaining Team met with representatives from the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA), at which time DPA passed a "conceptual proposal" outlining the cuts previously discussed by the Governor. The Governor's "conceptual proposal" is attached to this e-mail.

Given the Governor's recent pronouncements and his prior public posturing, CASE does not expect the administration to be any more reasonable or flexible regarding employee compensation issues than it has been in the past.

CASE has been, and continues to be, ready to bargain in good faith. However, the administration's recent "conceptual proposal" does not consider the fact that CASE members pay 20% more in pension contributions than other similarly-situated state employees, that their salaries lag behind other public sector lawyers and judges by 15% to 50%, and that our members have not enjoyed an increase in pay since the 2005 contract between the State and Bargaining Unit 2.

CASE is committed to fighting for its members at the bargaining table, through legislation, and if necessary, through litigation. As further information becomes available, it will be provided via global e-mail messages and on the CASE website (www.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 Unit 2 Member:

As you are aware, last year CASE sought a preemptory writ of mandate to prohibit the state from unilaterally taking away the Columbus Day and Lincoln's Day holidays. We are disappointed to report that, at a hearing today in the San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Busch denied our preemptory writ of mandate. Essentially Judge Busch's ruling was based on two related issues: (1) whether Government Code section 3517.8 was intended by the Legislature to create a contractual obligation; and (2) whether the takeaway of holidays was of a similar character to items such as salary and retirement, which case law suggests is protected by the contracts clause. CASE will likely appeal today's ruling.

Unfortunately, today's ruling means that CASE members cannot treat February 12, 2010, as a state holiday. If your department is currently furloughing its employees, February 12, 2010, will be a "Furlough Friday." If your department is not furloughing its employees, February 12, 2010, will be a regular work day.

As you know, CASE and its members are under attack on many fronts by this administration. While we recognize that the budget situation is extremely difficult, we will not stand idly by while the Governor tries to decimate the quality of the state's legal professionals during his last few months of office. We will continue our efforts at the bargaining table, in the Legislature, and in the courts. We are vigorously defending our two successful furlough lawsuits, which are now on appeal. In addition, we continue to meet with legislators at the Capitol both to communicate our strong feelings that CASE members have suffered enough, and also to assess the extent to which they are willing to resist the administration's recent pay cut proposal.

Moreover, we have recently been summoned back to the bargaining table by DPA, and we expect that DPA will pass a version of the Governor's "5-5-5" proposal. As you may have learned from various media outlets, the Governor is proposing a five percent salary decrease, an additional five percent increase in the employee share of retirement contribution, and a five percent reduction in workforce through attrition and other means. Keep in mind that the Governor's proposal includes an additional five percent pay cut if California does not receive all of the requested federal money from Washington D.C. We will do everything in our power to protect the already depressed salaries and benefits of CASE members.

We will continue to keep you updated on these matters. In the meantime, if you have any specific questions, 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

Dear Unit 2 member:

Today was the date set for the hearing in San Francisco County Superior Court on the merits of our petition which alleges that the State's unilateral takeaway of Columbus Day and Lincoln's Day holidays violated the state and federal contract clauses. By way of background, after CASE filed a writ of mandate in San Francisco, other unions filed other similar litigation challenging the holiday takeaway in Sacramento. Using the same strategy they pursued in the furlough litigation, DPA filed a motion to coordinate/consolidate all the holiday cases in front of Judge Marlette in Sacramento. CASE filed a preemptory challenge of Judge Marlette which caused the coordination motion to be reassigned to a different department and with no hearing date currently set in Sacramento. We will be opposing the motion for coordination on the merits, but we are hoping to render the issue moot by getting a ruling on the merits in the San Francisco court.

Initially at today's hearing, the judge indicated he was inclined to postpone our case until the court in Sacramento ruled on DPA's pending motion for coordination of all other subsequently filed holiday lawsuits. CASE argued that DPA's delay in filing their motion and their unexplained choice to file in a court that was procedurally less advanced than our case in San Francisco was not grounds for jeopardizing our opportunity to get a ruling prior to the upcoming Lincoln's holiday. CASE also pointed out in light of the 170.6 challenge we filed in Sacramento, it is now unlikely that DPA's motion for coordination in Sacramento would be heard any earlier than April.

The court was receptive to our arguments and ordered further briefing on the merits and also wanted a status update on the hearing dates in Sacramento. Our supplemental briefing is due January 29th and the next hearing date on the merits is set for February 3rd.

The precise question the court wants additional briefing on is whether an expired MOU, which is continued in effect by operation of statute (Government Code section 3517.8), is entitled to protection under the contracts clause since the "contract" expired and is only continued via a statute.

We will continue to keep you updated on this matter. In the meantime, if you have any specific questions, 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

On Thursday, December 31, 2009, Judge Frank Roesch of the Alameda County Superior Court issued a decision in CASE's "special fund" furlough litigation, which invalidated furloughs for all CASE members employed at the agencies listed below, and possibly at other agencies. Of CASE's approximately 3,500 members, approximately 2,500 are employed at agencies named in the litigation. You may read the Court's ruling by clicking on the link below.

Since this ruling affects thousands of employees in multiple departments, it is too soon to tell exactly when our members will receive their back pay and interest. Governor Schwarzenegger has already stated that he will appeal this decision.  When that appeal is filed, it will have the effect of automatically staying the implementation of the Court's order granting our petition for writ of mandate. Thus, our next priority will be to seek an order lifting the stay pending the Governor's appeal. If that request is granted, the Court's order will take effect immediately.

CASE will work to ensure that members receive back pay as quickly as possible. Keep in mind that after CASE's victory in the SCIF litigation, it took some time for the State Controller's Office to process warrants for back pay, but our members did ultimately receive a check for the back pay they were due. Also, the Controller is still processing the interest payments that our SCIF members are due (to be issued via a separate check.)

CASE will keep you updated on the progress of this and other litigation as additional information becomes available.

Please note that the Court's ruling clearly applies to all CASE-represented employees at the specially funded agencies listed below, as they were named parties in the litigation. In addition, the logic underpinning the court's decision suggests that furloughs at all agencies are unlawful under Government Code section 19851, subdivision (a). CASE is working to ensure that the final judgment to be signed by the court will have the broadest effect possible.

Agencies Named in Litigation
Air Resources Board
Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board
Attorney General of the State of California
Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency
California Department of Food and Agriculture
California Department of Transportation
California Earthquake Authority
California Highway Patrol
California Horse Racing Board
California Housing Finance Agency
California Integrated Waste Management Board
California Postsecondary Education Commission
California Prison Industry Authority
California State Coastal Conservancy
California State Lands Commission
California State Lottery Commission
California Tahoe Conservancy
California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Controller of the State of California
Department of Aging
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Department of Boating and Waterways
Department of Community Services and Development
Department of Conservation
Department of Consumer Affairs
Department of Corporations
Department of Financial Institutions
Department of Fish and Game
Department of General Services
Department of Health Care Services
Department of Housing and Community Development
Department of Industrial Relations
Department of Managed Health Care
Department of Motor Vehicles / New Motor Vehicle Board
Department of Parks and Recreation
Department of Pesticide Regulation
Department of Public Health
Department of Real Estate
Department of Rehabilitation
Department of Social Services
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Department of Veterans Affairs
Department of Water Resources
Division of Workers Compensation
Emergency Medical Services Authority
Employment Development Department
Gambling Control Commission
Insurance Commissioner of the State of California
Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board
Office of Administrative Hearings
Public Employees' Retirement System
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Secretary of State for the State of California
State Council on Developmental Disabilities
State Teachers' Retirement System
State Water Resources Control Board
Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board
Wildlife Conservation Board
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

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

Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors

The following list of candidates has been certified by the CASE Election Committee as nominees for the 2009 CASE Elections. Four (4) Officer (President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer) and five (5) Director-at-Large seats will be up for election. Four of the Director-at-Large positions are designated as "odd-year" seats, and successful candidates will serve two-year terms. The other Director-at-Large position is for a vacated "even-year" seat. Pursuant to CASE's Bylaws, that position will be filled for the remaining one year of the term by the candidate with the fifth highest vote total for the Director-at-Large positions.

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 26, 2009, at the CASE Board of Directors Meeting in Sacramento.

President

Peter Flores, Jr. - Incumbent
Deputy Attorney General III
Department of Justice
San Francisco

Vice President

Donna David - Incumbent
Workers' Compensation Judge
Department of Industrial Relations
Long Beach

Leslie Evans
Sr. Staff Counsel
Department of Social Services
Sacramento

Secretary

Timothy Weiner- Incumbent
Deputy Attorney General III
Department of Justice
Los Angeles

Treasurer

Steven M. Kamp
Tax Counsel III
Board of Equalization
Sacramento

Rama R. Maline - Incumbent
Deputy Attorney General IV
Department of Justice
Los Angeles

Directors at Large

Frederick Clark - Incumbent
Administrative Law Judge I
Department of Social Services
San Diego

Howard Goodman - Incumbent
Workers' Compensation Judge
Department of Industrial Relations
Marina Del Rey

Mark Henderson - Incumbent
Staff Counsel III
State Compensation Insurance Fund
Glendale

Geoffrey S. Lauter - Incumbent
Deputy Attorney General IV
Department of Justice
San Francisco

Matthew Mulford - Incumbent
Deputy Attorney General IV
Department of Justice
San Diego

Michael Newman
Deputy Attorney General III
Department of Justice
Los Angeles

Pamela Palmieri
Senior Staff Counsel
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Sacramento

James G. Queenan
Administrative Law Judge I
California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
San Diego