You are here

Client News

News page banner

U.S. Supreme Court Rules In Janus V. AFSCME That Agency Fees Violate The First Amendment and SB 866 Is Signed Into Law In Response

Client Alert

Introduction

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME ((2018) 585 U.S. __) declaring that union “agency fees” violate the First Amendment and, consequently, are unconstitutional. The Court’s decision will significantly impact labor law precedent and recognized employee organizations because non-union workers/members can no longer be forced to pay fees to public sector employee organizations/unions.

 

CA Governor Signs Long-Term Water Conservation Bills, SB 606 And AB 1668

Client Alert

SB 606 and AB 1668 (“Bills”), signed by the Governor of California on May 31, 2018, amend the Water Code to impose a number of new or expanded requirements on state and local water suppliers. SB 606 and AB 1668 set out new water use targets and implement the Governor’s Executive Order to create a permanent framework for water conservation.

Propositions 68, 69, 71, and 72 Pass in Statewide Election, and a New Water Bond Measure is Planned for November Ballot

Client Alert

Summary

On June 5, 2018, California voters approved four ballot initiatives impacting public agencies, water and infrastructure, Propositions 68, 69, 71 and 72.  California voters approved bonds for water infrastructure (68) and limited the use of certain funds for transportation infrastructure (69).  Voters also approved measures addressing the effective date of election results (71), and providing tax incentives for rainwater capture (72).  

New Standards for MS4 Permit Requirements May Entitle Local Governments to Reimbursement

Client Alert

On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeal issued a published opinion in Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 661 (petition for review filed Jan. 26, 2018, request for depublication filed Feb. 15, 2018) (“San Diego DOF Decision”).  The County of San Diego and the cities located in that county were seeking a determination that certain municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (“San Diego Regional Board”) are unfunded state mandates. The Court, applying a 2016 California Supreme Court decision, concluded that six permit requirements are unfunded mandates under the California Constitution and therefore local governments are entitled to reimbursement by the State. The six requirements are listed in the more detailed discussion of the case below.

Groundwater Charges Not Subject to Prop 218

Client Alert

On December 4, 2017, the California Supreme Court published its decision in City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, holding that the statutorily authorized groundwater pumping charges imposed on the City of Buenaventura by a local water conservation district, the United Water Conservation District, to fund conservation activities such as replenishing groundwater stores and preventing degradation of water supply, are not subject to Proposition 218.  The Court also held that Proposition 26 is the proper framework for evaluating the constitutionality of the groundwater pumping charge.  The Court also remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal to determine whether the groundwater pumping charges bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the City’s burden on or benefit from the District’s conservation activities, as required by Proposition 26.

SB 231: A Watershed Moment?

Client Alert

On October 6, 2017, the Governor signed SB 231, which clarifies that the definition of “sewer” includes both sanitary sewers and storm sewers. Senator Hertzberg, the bill’s author, and the California Coastkeeper Alliance have called SB 231’s passage a “watershed moment” because SB 231 can make it easier for local agencies to finance projects which collect storm water and treat it for recycling or recharge.

However, at this time, agencies should not rely on SB 231 to pass separate fees or charges solely for storm sewer system operation, maintenance and capital costs.  This client alert explains why and provides context for SB 231.

California Court of Appeal Reaffirms Immunity for Police Pursuits

Client Alert

On August 23, 2017, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District addressed the requirements for a public agency employing peace officers to be entitled to immunity from liability under Vehicle Code Sec. 17004.7 for the conduct of officers during vehicle pursuits.  In Ramirez v. City of Gardena, the Court held in part that an agency’s pursuit policy may meet the standards of Sec. 17004.7 if it “provide[s] guidance to officers concerning factors to consider, even if [it] also leaves room for the exercise of individual discretion . . . .”

New Employer Notice to Employees Requirement for Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Time Off

Client Alert

On September 14, 2016, the Governor signed AB 2337 into law.  While AB 2337 became effective on January 1, 2017, the new law did not require employers to comply with its notice requirements until the Labor Commissioner developed and posted a model notice on the Department of Industrial Relations’ website.  Employers could then use the model notice to inform their employees of their rights under Section 230.1.  The Labor Commissioner’s Office posted the model notice in May 2017.  This client alert provides an update on the amended law and the new notice requirement placed on supervisors.

Pages

Subscribe to Client News