Service Employees International Union v. Brown
128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 711
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- SEIU petitioned for writ of mandate on the Governor's 2008 and 2009 furlough orders (two then three days per month) affecting about 95,000 employees; trial court invalidated the orders on two grounds and granted backpay relief; the Governor and DPA appealed; subsequent briefing aligned with Professional Engineers decision.
- Professional Engineers held that Legislature ratified the furloughs via revisions to the 2008 and 2009 Budget Acts, constraining the scope of administrative authority to reduce compensation through “existing administration authority” tied to an item of appropriation.
- This court held the three-day furlough was ratified as to agencies with an item of appropriation in the 2008 and 2009 Budget Acts, so 58 of 63 defendants are included; five agencies lack an item of appropriation and face remand.
- Five agencies (First 5 California, Prison Industry Authority, California Earthquake Authority, California Housing Finance Agency, Office of Administrative Hearings) are not tied to an appropriation item and thus are not conclusively within the furlough program; remand allowed to explore continuing appropriations or other budgetary linkages.
- Appendix lists the agencies and corresponding budget-item details; the Legislature subsequently addressed related funding mechanics via continuing appropriations and borrowable funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of three-day furlough under Professional Engineers | SEIU: three days valid; Legislature ratified through 2009 Act; broader scope possible | Governor/DPA: interpretation should reflect statutory language and ratification limits | Three-day furlough ratified; 58 agencies included; remand for five agencies to show linkage |
| Inclusion of agencies without an item of appropriation | SEIU: without item of appropriation, not included | Court should apply Professional Engineers to item-of-appropriation test | 58 agencies affirmed; five agencies not barred absent additional evidence; remand for those five |
| Borrowability from special funds affects inclusion | Borrowability determines applicability | Borrowability not controlling; item of appropriation governs | Borrowability rejected as controlling; focus on items of appropriation remains decisive |
| Role of continuing appropriations in inclusion | Continuing appropriations could bring agencies within furlough | Not clearly within the prior test; further evidence needed | Remand to consider continuing appropriations and related funding sources for the five agencies |
| Judicial scope to remand and gather budgetary context | Record insufficient to resolve five agencies’ status | Legislative budget process governs decisions | Remand authorized to gather pertinent budgetary evidence under Professional Engineers framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2010) (ratification of furloughs via revised Budget Acts; existing administration authority tied to item of appropriation)
- Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt, 59 Cal.2d 159 (Cal. 1963) (items of appropriation and borrowable funds analyzed in budget context)
- White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528 (Cal. 2003) (Legislature's control over expenditures; budgeting not purely executive)
- Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State, 25 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2001) (budgetary process; courts defer to legislative decisions on fiscal matters)
- Coastside Fishing Club v. California Resources Agency, 158 Cal.App.4th 1183 (Cal. App. 2008) (Judicial deference to legislative budget policies in policy decisions)