Altshuler Berzon LLP, with co-counsel Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court alleging that Google has engaged in systemic and pervasive pay and promotion discrimination against its female employees in California. The lawsuit, Ellis v. Google Inc., filed by Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri, accuses Google of paying women at all levels less than comparable men, assigning women to lower tiers and/or job ladders with lower compensation and/or upward mobility than those to which similar men are assigned, and promoting women slower and less frequently than their male counterparts. Plaintiffs allege that Google has long known of these issues but has failed to correct them, causing substantial damage to its female workforce.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has approved the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the California Federation of Teachers and four of its affiliated local unions against the Accrediting Commission for Community & Junior Colleges (ACCJC).
The lawsuit, AFT Local 2121 v. Accrediting Commission for Community & Junior Colleges, stemmed from ACCJC’s 2013 decision to terminate the accreditation of City College of San Francisco, and challenged ACCJC’s City College decision and many of its accreditation practices as arbitrary and intrusive into the faculty unions’ collective bargaining relationships with California community colleges. In January 2017, ACCJC restored City College to full accreditation status. The settlement includes policy and standards changes – some of which ACCJC began to implement while the litigation was ongoing – which will increase ACCJC’s transparency and accountability, and avoid interference with the unions’ collective bargaining relationships.
Altshuler Berzon LLP, together with co-counsel, represented the California Federation of Teachers, the local unions, and five individual plaintiffs in the federal court litigation.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington today dismissed Chamber of Commerce et al. v. City of Seattle et al., a United States Chamber of Commerce lawsuit challenging a Seattle ordinance that establishes a process for independent contractor drivers who contract with for-hire and taxicab transportation companies, including companies like Uber and Lyft, to collectively organize and negotiate with the transportation company over the terms and conditions of their contractual relationships.
The City adopted the new ordinance in January 2016, but delayed implementation while rules were developed. The Chamber of Commerce filed suit in March 2017, asserting that Seattle’s ordinance was preempted by federal labor and antitrust law and various Washington laws. The City moved to dismiss the Chamber’s complaint, and the District Court today granted the City’s motion. The District Court concluded that the Chamber’s federal antitrust preemption theory failed because the ordinance was a valid exercise of Seattle’s delegated authority to regulate the for-hire and taxicab transportation industries and satisfied the requirement for “state action” antitrust immunity. The District Court also rejected the Chamber’s National Labor Relations Act preemption theories, concluding that in excluding independent contractors from the NLRA, Congress had left the States free to regulate those workers’ labor relations. Finally, the District Court concluded that the Chamber’s state law theories had no merit.
A preliminary injunction will remain in place while the District Court considers the City’s motion to dismiss a related case asserting preemption and other theories.
Altshuler Berzon LLP, together with the Seattle City Attorney’s office, represents the City of Seattle in the litigation.
In its annual review of the largest and most significant verdicts and appellate reversals in California, The Daily Journal named Altshuler Berzon LLP’s victory in Vergara v. California as the top appellate reversal of 2016.
The plaintiffs in Vergara had sued the State of California, several state officials, and three school districts in 2012, alleging that five statutes that provide California public school teachers with certain job security protections after a two-year probationary period violated the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution by causing students to be assigned to “grossly ineffective teachers” in violation of their fundamental right to educational equality. The California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP, intervened to help the State defend the statutes’ constitutionality.
After an eight-week trial, the trial court invalidated all five statutes. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed, ordering judgment to be entered in favor of the State and the teacher union intervenors, and against the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs’ equal protection theories were fundamentally flawed, and that the challenged statutes do not violate equal protection because the statutes do not require different treatment of any identifiable groups of students, do not cause any school district to hire, fire, or assign any particular teacher to any particular student, and do not result in disproportionate assignment of less effective teachers to low-income or minority students. Plaintiffs filed a petition requesting that the California Supreme Court review the Court of Appeal’s decision, but the Supreme Court denied that petition on August 22, 2016.
Altshuler Berzon LLP partners Michael Rubin, Stacey Leyton, Eileen Goldsmith, and Casey Pitts principally handled the appeal for the teachers unions and were featured in The Daily Journal’s article on the Vergara victory.
In a victory for environmental groups seeking to protect healthy rivers and endangered species, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California today denied the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that it has failed to carry out its duty to enforce the Clean Water Act.
In Natural Resources Defense Council v. McCarthy, three environmental groups filed suit alleging that, since 2014, California’s State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has waived water quality standards in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary 14 separate times, causing severe damage to a fragile ecosystem providing habitat for dozens of endangered plants and animals, including several salmon species. Their complaint, filed against the EPA, alleges that the EPA failed to carry out its mandatory duty under the Clean Water Act to review any revision to state water quality standards to ensure that the revised standards meet the minimum requirements of the Clean Water Act. EPA filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that the SWRCB’s waivers are not subject to federal oversight and do not qualify as revisions because they were temporary in duration.
The District Court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor. The Court explained that EPA has a clear statutory responsibility to review any revision to water quality standards and that EPA had failed to demonstrate that the waivers – although temporary in duration – do not effectively revise California’s water quality standards.
Altshuler Berzon LLP represents Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in the litigation.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California today granted motions to dismiss challenges to California Senate Bill 954 (2016), which prohibits contractors on public work from unilaterally reducing workers’ wages by taking credit for payments to industry advancement funds. Under Senate Bill 954, contractors may only take credit for industry advancement payments that are required by a collective bargaining agreement with the workers’ representative.
In ABC-Contractor Cooperation Committee v. Becerra, a contractor and an industry advancement fund alleged that Senate Bill 954 is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and violates the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. The District Court rejected the challenges, concluding that Congress did not intend to prevent the States from allowing minimum labor standards to be varied by collective bargaining agreements and that the California statute does not restrain free speech or impermissibly discriminate.
Altshuler Berzon LLP represented the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in defending the law.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a stay of a District Court injunction that prevented enforcement of a new California law that requires suppliers of ready-mix concrete to public work to pay ready-mix drivers at least the prevailing wage.
In Allied Concrete v. Baker, a group of ready-mix suppliers assert a constitutional challenge to California Assembly Bill 219 (2015), which applies the prevailing wage law to ready-mix drivers working for commercial suppliers. The District Court denied the motion of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to intervene to defend the statute and then issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting state officials from enforcing the statute, reasoning that there are “serious questions” about whether the law violates equal protection. The Teamsters filed an immediate appeal and joined state officials in seeking a stay of the preliminary injunction, which the Ninth Circuit granted.
Altshuler Berzon LLP represents the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in the action.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California upheld California’s refinery safety law, Senate Bill 54, which allows refineries to use outside construction contractors to perform onsite work only if those contractors use a skilled and trained workforce. The Legislature found that the use of unskilled workers at the refineries is a threat to public health and safety and to the environment.
Two contractors sought to overturn the law, arguing that it is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and that SB 54 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The District Court entered summary judgment for the Defendants, holding that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their constitutional Equal Protection claim, and that their preemption claims lacked merit. The Court explained that the Legislature has the power to pass laws to protect public health and safety, including SB 54, which was passed in the wake of the 2012 explosion at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, California.
Altshuler Berzon LLP represented the State Building and Construction Trades Council, which intervened on the side of the State to defend the law.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina today issued a preliminary injunction requiring the State Board of Elections and three North Carolina counties to restore the voter registrations of approximately 4,000 individuals whose registrations had been cancelled in the final weeks and months before the election based on an alleged change in residence. These voters were purged as a result of mass challenges filed by private parties based solely on a single piece of mail sent to the voters that had been returned as undeliverable, even though in many cases the voters had not changed their residence or had simply moved to a different residence within the same county and thus remained eligible to vote. County boards of elections purged many challenged voters unless they appeared at a hearing in person or submitted affidavits to defend their eligibility to vote. The court ruled that these cancellations of voter registrations were likely unlawful under two provisions of the National Voter Registration Act, one that prohibits “systematic” purges of voter rolls within the 90 days prior to a federal election and one that establishes a strict process, involving statutorily prescribed notice and a waiting period of at least two years, for cancelling a voter’s registration based on a change of residence.
Altshuler Berzon LLP, along with co-counsel, represents the plaintiffs, which include the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Moore County Branch of the NAACP, and individuals whose eligibility to vote had been challenged.
The California Supreme Court today declined to review the California Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision in Vergara et al. v. California et al., Case No. B258589, which reversed a Los Angeles Superior Court decision invalidating five statutes governing the employment of California public school teachers.
The Vergara plaintiffs sued the State of California, several state officials, and three school districts in 2012, alleging that five statutes that provide California public school teachers with certain job security protections after a two-year probationary period violated the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution by causing students to be assigned to “grossly ineffective teachers” in violation of their fundamental right to educational equality. The California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP, intervened to help the State defend the statutes’ constitutionality.
After an eight-week trial, the trial court invalidated all five statutes. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed that decision and ordered judgment to be entered in favor of the State and the teacher union intervenors and against the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs’ equal protection theories were fundamentally flawed, and that the challenged statutes do not violate equal protection, because the statutes do not require different treatment of any identifiable groups of students, do not cause any school district to hire, fire, or assign any particular teacher to any particular student, and do not result in disproportionate assignment of less effective students to low-income or minority students. Plaintiffs filed a petition requesting that the California Supreme Court review the Court of Appeal’s decision, but the Supreme Court today denied that petition. As a result, the case is now over.
Altshuler Berzon LLP represented the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers in the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court.