Brown v. Chiang
132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Governor issued Executive Order No. S-16-08 in December 2008 directing a two-day-a-month unpaid furlough for most executive branch employees to address a severe budget deficit.
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger (2010) held the furlough power valid for represented employees if authorized by an MOU or Legislature; it left open whether officers’ employees are covered.
- Legislature subsequently revised the 2008 Budget Act in February 2009 (and again in 2009) to reflect reductions in employee compensation through the furlough plan, endorsing the Governor’s approach.
- The Budget Act revisions included section 3.90, indicating reductions to be achieved via bargaining or existing administration authority, and directing the Director of Finance to allocate savings; it did not change the Dills Act framework.
- The Controller refused to implement the furlough order for officers’ employees, prompting a writ of mandate to compel compliance; the trial court and appellate court held the order, as endorsed by the Legislature, applied to these employees.
- The decision addressed whether application to officers’ employees violated divided executive authority or the officers’ staffing rights, and whether estoppel or later budget vetoes moot the duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the furlough order apply to officers’ employees? | Controller argues not covered as officers’ employees are outside the order. | Governor/Legislature contend coverage extended to officers’ employees via coverage of represented employees. | Yes; order applied to officers’ employees. |
| Did subsequent budget actions moot the duty to implement? | Budget line-item vetoes and budget revisions nullified the earlier mandate. | Legislature ratified the furlough plan, so the duty persisted irrespective of later vetoes. | No; duty persisted and was ratified by the Legislature. |
| Do equitable estoppel principles bar enforcement against officers? | Governor misled officers to rely on non-coverage. | Any reliance was unreasonable and public interest outweighed private reliance. | No; estoppel did not bar enforcement. |
| Does applying the furlough plan to officers violate divided executive authority? | Furloughing elected officers’ staff intrudes on separate constitutional offices. | Legislature endorsed the plan and Governor may supervise executive conduct; no constitutional violation. | No; plan does not violate divided executive authority. |
| Did the Legislature’s ratification through section 3.90 authorize reductions via the furlough plan? | Budget act cannot grant substantive authority to furlough officers’ employees. | Section 3.90 merely endorses implementing reductions through existing authority, including furloughs. | Yes; section 3.90 authorized reductions via the furlough plan. |
Key Cases Cited
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2010) (addressed Governor’s furlough authority and Legislature’s ratification; extended to officers’ employees)
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, 29 Cal.3d 168 (Cal. 1981) (limits on executive power delegated by the Legislature; separation of powers)
- State Trial Attorneys’ Assn. v. State of California, 63 Cal.App.3d 298 (Cal. App. Dist. 3d 1976) (legislative delegation of employment terms; executive authority frame)
- Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Comm., 36 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2005) (statutory interpretation of executive authority and agency duties)
- McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 11 (Cal. 1860) (separation of powers; ministerial duties and executive independence)
- Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 Cal.4th 164 (Cal. 2002) (public interest in continuing governance when fiscal issues arise)