Professional Engineers in California Government v. Brown
229 Cal. App. 4th 861
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Governor-led furloughs for PECG/CAPS unionized engineers/scientists and hazardous-substance positions; two groups argued furloughs violated Water/Health & Safety Codes and single-subject rule; Budget Act 2010 §3.91 required proportional reductions and allowed nonrepresented reductions; EO S-15-10 and prior EOs effected reductions totaling 8.5% through 2010-2011; district court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on some points; appellate court affirmed most rulings, reversed only as to hazardous-waste positions; case was brought by state employee unions seeking writ of mandate; context includes Professional Engineers I and related case law on budget acts and agency authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-subject rule applicability | Plaintiffs: ratified furloughs violated single-subject rule by substantive changes | Brown/DA/DFB: budget act provisions are germane to budget and do not amend substantive statutes | Furloughs for hazardous-waste positions did not violate single-subject rule |
| Meaning of personal services limitations | Statutes ban hiring freezes/personal services limits; furloughs fall within | Furloughs do not fit the term as intended by statute | Statutes encompass furloughs as personal services limitations |
| Proportionate reductions | Proportionate means identical percentage reductions between represented and nonrepresented | Proportionate means proportionate by ratio as statute requires; not identical percentages | Proportions must be literal; represented employees cannot be paid back; held that ratio-based interpretation is correct and relief limited accordingly |
| Mandamus relief appropriateness | Writ appropriate to compel backpay and undo unlawful furloughs | Remedies at law; mandamus inappropriate for monetary claims | Mandamus appropriate; court could grant backpay/relief for statutory interpretation issues |
| Budget Act ratification validity | Budget Act attempts to substantively amend existing statutes through budget provisions | Budget act provisions are within legislative authority and do not substantively amend statute; ratification valid | Ratification valid; did not violate single-subject rule as to the challenged furloughs |
Key Cases Cited
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2010) (budget act can implement reductions without substantively amending statute; single-subject issue defers to budget structure)
- Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Swoap, 173 Cal.App.3d 1187 (Cal. App. 1985) (riders and substantive policy changes in budget bills raise single-subject concerns)
- California Lab. Federation v. Occupational Safety & Health Stds. Bd., 5 Cal.App.4th 985 (Cal. App. 1992) (budget provisions cannot substantively amend existing law; but may address budgetary implementation)
- California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist., 14 Cal.4th 627 (Cal. 1997) (limits on judicial rewrite of legislative intent; interpret statutes per plain meaning)
- California Attorneys, etc. v. Brown, 195 Cal.App.4th 119 (Cal. App. 2011) (inapplicable where statutory context differs (State Fund))