California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. 4th 177

City of Los Angeles enacted Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance for 15,000+ sq ft stores undergoing ownership transfer, creating a 90-day period during which nonmanagerial employees from the prior owner must be hired from a list and may only be discharged for cause, with written evaluations and potential continued employment considerations; union agreements may supersede the Ordinance.
Grocers Association sued to enjoin enforcement on grounds of state health/safety preemption and federal NLRA preemption, plus equal protection claims; LA Alliance intervened to defend.
Trial court enjoined enforcement on health/safety preemption and equal protection grounds; Court of Appeal divided, majority holding preemption (Retail Food Code and NLRA) while dissent argued no preemption.
This Court reverses, holding the Ordinance is not preempted by express field preemption in the Retail Food Code or by Machinists preemption under NLRA, and it upholds rational-basis equal protection analysis; ordinance applies to nonunion and union workplaces and includes an opt-out.
Court recognizes the Ordinance merely preserves the status quo during a 90-day window and does not dictate substantive bargaining terms; no direct intrusion into organizing or bargaining was found.
The decision is framed as a narrow reading of preemption, allowing local regulation of employment during ownership transitions absent explicit congressional intent to preempt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Health/safety field preemption?”	Grocers argues Retail Food Code fully occupies health/sanitation standards.	City contends Ordinance regulates employment, not health/safety, thus not occupying the field.	Not preempted; Ordinance does not establish health/sanitation standards.
NLRA Machinists preemption?”	Grocers asserts indirect effects on successorship preempted under Machinists.	Court should examine whether Congress intended to leave such conduct unregulated; no clear preemption.	Machinists preemption does not apply; no explicit congressional intent to preclude retention ordinances.
Equal protection validity?	Ordinance discriminatorily targets large stores and various classes.	Legislature rationally distinguished by store size and community impact; opt-out preserves balance.	Constitutional under rational basis review.
Opt-out provision validity?	Opt-out could undermine preemption analysis.	Opt-out enhances regulatory flexibility consistent with NLRA policy.	Opt-out rationally related to legitimate objectives and nonpreemptive.

John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (1964) (successor bargaining rights; continuity of enterprise emphasis)
NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972) (successor liability; employees may be retained but not compelled by contract)
Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel Employees, 417 U.S. 249 (1974) (successor may hire own workforce; not bound to predecessors’ contract terms)
Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987) (when successor hires majority from predecessor, bargaining obligation may attach)
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) (process-focused NLRA preemption; state minimal standards permissible)
Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (1987) (severance-like protections; not preempted when serving minimal employment standards)
Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976) ( Machinists preemption; protects balance in bargaining; limits state intrusion into process)
Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 475 U.S. 608 (1986) (preemption where state action dictates settlement in bargaining context)
Brown v. Government ties (Chamber of Commerce v. Brown), 554 U.S. 60 (2008) (NLRA preemption analysis; congressional intent and speech regulation context)
Washington Service Contractors v. District of Columbia, 54 F.3d 809 (1995) (retention ordinance effects on successorship; not controlling here but cited for context)