Brown v. Superior Court
132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 448
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Governor issued two fiscal-emergency furlough orders: two days per month (S-16-08) and three days per month (S-13-09) for Bargaining Unit 6 employees, including CCPOA-represented correctional staff.
- DPA implemented a self-directed furlough program applying a roughly 13.5% pay reduction, with furlough days having no cash value and requiring use of furlough credits before other paid leave.
- CCPOA sued Governor, DPA, Controller, and agencies seeking a writ mandating backpay for hours worked, arguing violations of Gov. Code 19826, Labor Code 223, and minimum wage law.
- Trial court held the furlough caused a salary reduction and violated Labor Code sections 223 and 1171 et seq., and ordered backpay.
- Supreme Court later held that the 2008 and 2009 Budget Act revisions effectively ratified the furloughs as a permissible means of achieving required compensation reductions, undermining the trial court’s grounds.
- This opinion grants Governor’s petition, sets aside the writ, and dismisses CCPOA’s appeals on the asserted grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the furlough program violates Gov. Code 19826. | CCPOA argues 19826 bars unilateral salary reductions for represented employees. | Governor/DP A contends 2008–2009 Budget Act revisions ratified reductions via legislative action. | No; Legislature ratified via budget revisions. |
| Whether the furlough violates Labor Code 223. | CCPOA asserts secret reduction of wages violates 223. | There was no secret, and no operative MOU; 223 not applicable. | Not applicable; no violation. |
| Whether the furlough violates minimum wage law. | CCPOA claims hours worked not paid at minimum wage when furlough taken. | Claim premature; not justiciable; no current violation established. | Premature to decide; no current justiciable violation. |
| Whether the furlough violates Labor Code 212 or the single-subject rule. | CCPOA contends 212 and single-subject restrictions are breached by furloughs. | Budget ratification and MOU framework render 212/as-applied challenge nonviable; single-subject not violated. | No violation; issues not dispositive at this time. |
| Whether the appeal should be treated as writ review and what remedy is appropriate. | CCPOA seeks writ relief; argues improper procedural posture. | Governor appeals; issues ripe for writ; posture appropriate for review. | Appeals dismissed; writ issued in Governor’s favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2010) (Legislature ratified furlough reductions via revised Budget Acts; 19826/3.90 analyzed.)
- SEIU v. Brown, 197 Cal.App.4th 252 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (Applied Professional Engineers logic to expanded furloughs.)
- Greene v. Department of Personnel Administration, 5 Cal.App.4th 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (Interpreted 19826; special legislative control over salaries for represented employees.)
- White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528 (Cal. 2003) (State salary payments during budget impasses; limits on when funds are available.)
- Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 163 Cal.App.4th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (Labor Code 223 context; secret underpayment jurisprudence.)
- Longshore v. County of Ventura, 25 Cal.3d 14 (Cal. 1979) (Deferred compensation concepts in wages.)
- People v. Pereira, 207 Cal.App.3d 1057 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (Contracts vs. offers; binding nature of MOUs.)
- Glib v. Chiang, 186 Cal.App.4th 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (DPA authority to defer salary payments respecting impasses.)