195 Cal. App. 4th 691
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Union of American Physicians and Dentists challenged Governor's two- and three-day furloughs as unlawful under state statutes; trial court invalidated the furloughs; Supreme Court later clarified governing principles in Professional Engineers; Legislature ratified the furlough plan through 2009 budget revisions; issue concerned furloughs affecting special fund and federally funded employees; this appeal challenges the trial court’s rulings and analyzes statutory interpretation de novo.
- Furloughs began February 1, 2009 (two days/month) and expanded to three days/month (July 1, 2009) through Governor's orders; UAPD represented nonmanagement physicians and dentists; several state departments were named defendants.
- Trial court relied on Gov. Code sections 1985 and 16310 to invalidate furloughs; held furloughs interfered with special funds and improper under 16310; Governor appealed.
- Supreme Court’s Professional Engineers decision held the Governor lacked unilateral authority to impose furloughs but recognized legislative ratification of the then-existing furlough program via 2009 budget revisions.
- Court cites diverse authorities to interpret the statute language and to determine retroactivity and Legislative intent regarding the third furlough day and federally funded employees.
- Disposition: reversal of trial court’s judgment; furloughs (including federally funded and third day) deemed valid under the 2009 budget acts and Professional Engineers framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1985 applies to furloughs | UAPD: 1985 governs overtime, not furloughs; trial court correct. | Governor: 1985 not applicable to furloughs. | Two-day furlough not invalid under 1985. |
| Whether 16310 prohibits furloughs | UAPD: 16310 interferes with special funds; unlawful. | Governor: no proven transfer-interference; 16310 not violated. | Furloughs not per se violation of 16310. |
| Whether federally funded employees can be furloughed | UAPD: no authority to furlough federally funded staff. | Governor: Legislature ratified furloughs across funding sources. | Governor valid to furlough federally funded employees. |
| Validity of the third furlough day | UAPD: third day not ratified; illegality. | Governor: 2009 revisions authorized; ratified. | Third furlough day valid. |
| February 6, 2009 furlough validity | UAPD: illegality; retroactivity problems. | Governor: revisions ratified the then-existing furlough. | February 6, 2009 furlough ratified by 2009 Budget Act revisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2010) (governor lacked unilateral furlough power but 2009 revisions ratified the program)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) (general rule on judicial treatment of statutory interpretation)
- Lloyd’s of London v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 945 (Cal. 2001) (plain-language interpretation governs statutory analysis)
- McClung v. Employment Development Dept., 34 Cal.4th 467 (Cal. 2004) (retroactivity considerations in statutory changes)
- Elsner v. Uvegas, 34 Cal.4th 915 (Cal. 2004) (legislative history and interpretation of budget acts)
- California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist., 28 Cal.3d 692 (Cal. 1981) (de novo review of question of law on statutory interpretation)