New Law Requiring Later Start Times For Middle Schools And High Schools Creates Uncertainty For Educational Agencies

November 2019
Number 66

Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 328, which establishes new mandatory school day start times for most middle schools and high schools. SB 328 adds section 46148 to the Education Code, requiring high schools to set the beginning of the school day no earlier than 8:30 a.m., and middle schools at no earlier than 8:00 a.m. The reasoning behind this new law is based on studies showing increased academic performance, school attendance, and health for students at schools that started later in the day.

SB 328 raises several questions for school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. Here are some of the areas which remain uncertain or will need to be addressed by school districts.

Implementation Date. The new start times must be implemented by July 1, 2022, unless the school district or charter school has a collective bargaining agreement that is operative on January 1, 2020 and expires after July 1, 2022; in that case, the new start times shall be implemented at the expiration of that collective bargaining agreement. Most school districts have two collective bargaining agreements, one with their teachers and certificated personnel, and the other with classified personnel. Unfortunately, SB 328 does not distinguish whether one or both collective bargaining agreements must expire for this start time mandate to be implemented.

Collective Bargaining. In addition to questions regarding when SB 328 will be implemented, collective bargaining may also be required to set new start and end times for employees, and districts affected by SB 328 will need to give notice and offer to negotiate these changes with their bargaining units.

Rural School Districts. SB 328 provides that rural school districts are exempted from the new school start time. However, the law does not currently provide a definition of a “rural school district,” a fact that was noted in the legislative analysis that accompanied the bill. This rural exemption only applies to school districts, but not to charter schools.

Enforcement. The text of the new statute is silent as to how SB 328 might be enforced to ensure compliance.

Middle School and High School. SB 328 lacks a definition of “middle school” and of “high school.” Does “middle school” cover grades 6 to 8 or 7 and 8 only, and does this mandate apply to elementary schools which serve grades ranging from kindergarten to eighth grade?

Other Considerations. Notably, it is still permissible to offer “zero” period classes or activities that start before the school day and do not count towards average daily attendance. Also, SB 328 does not appear to create any new obligations for secondary schools directly run by county offices of education, but would affect a charter school overseen by a county office of education.

Takeaways

SB 328 will have significant impacts on the operations of school districts, for both the students and the employees. School districts who rely on staggering their bus transportation times for secondary and elementary students may have to acquire more buses or push elementary school start times back. Districts may also need to consider the cost of expanding child care and other before-school programs, as well as changes to the scheduling of after school programs and extracurricular activities to later in the day; this may result in student-athletes missing more class time due to afternoon competitions. Many secondary schools open up their campus to outside groups through the Civic Center Act when school ends and the later start time may require renegotiating of arrangements with community groups for time slots after the school day. Finally, districts that are considering whether they qualify for exemption as “rural school district” may wish to contact legal counsel for assistance.

School districts should start planning now to address the issues raised by compliance with this new bill and work together with employees, parents, and other community stakeholders to determine how to best meet student needs within the parameters of SB 328.

For more information about SB 328, including questions about preparing for changes to school start times, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also subscribe to our podcast, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn or download our mobile app.

Written by:

Ruth E. Mendyk

Partner

Joshua Whiteside

Associate

©2019 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

New Laws Will Impact Public Work Projects

November 2019
Number 65

Governor Gavin Newsom has signed two laws that will impact public works contracts in California. Assembly Bill (AB) 456 extends the operative date for the current contractor claims resolution process to January 1, 2027. AB 1768 expands the definition of “public works” for purposes of paying prevailing wage, regulating working hours, and securing worker’s compensation.

AB 456

The law as currently stated in Public Contract Code section 9204 prescribes a claims resolution process for any claim by a contractor in connection with a conovernor Gavin Newsom has signed two laws that will impact public works contracts in California. Assembly Bill (AB) 456 extends the operative date for the current contractor claims resolution process to January 1, 2027. AB 1768 expands the definition of “public works” for purposes of paying prevailing wage, regulating working hours, and securing worker’s compensation.

AB 456

The law as currently stated in Public Contract Code section 9204 prescribes a claims resolution process for any claim by a contractor in connection with a contract for a public works project entered into on or after January 1, 2017.

Under existing law, such a claim is defined as a separate demand by the contractor for one or more of the following:

  • A time extension for relief from damages or penalties for delay;
  • Payment of money or damages arising from the work done pursuant to the contract for a public work; or
  • Payment of an amount disputed by the public entity.

Upon receipt of a claim that is subject to this resolution process, a public entity must conduct a reasonable review of the claim and provide to claimant a written statement identifying what portion of the claim is disputed and what portion is undisputed. The public entity is required to provide this statement within 45 days.

The law requiring this claims resolution process was set to expire January 1, 2020. AB 456 extended the sunset date to January 1, 2027.

AB 1768

This bill specifies that preconstruction and postconstruction work fall within the definition of “public works” and, consistent with existing law, employees conducting such work must be compensated no less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations. This definition of “public works” is only for purposes of the Labor Code and prevailing wages.

Previously, “public works” included construction, alteration, demolition, installation or repair work done under contract and paid in whole or in part with public funds. Now, the definition of “construction” under Labor Code section 1720 has been expanded to specifically include work performed during the design, site assessment, feasibility study, and other preconstruction phases of construction, including but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work and work performed during the postconstruction phases of construction, including but not limited to all cleanup work at the jobsite. Furthermore, preconstruction work is considered “construction” regardless of whether any actual construction work is done at that phase. What this means is the scope of work covered by existing prevailing wage laws has grown.

Any willful violation of prevailing wage law is a misdemeanor, and because AB 1768 expands the application of an existing crime, it also imposes a state-mandated local program.

Takeaways

Public entities should be mindful that prevailing wage rights have been extended to all employees conducting pre and postconstruction services on public works projects. This may entail additional cost in contracts for those services. Public entities should also ensure that their contracts for construction include appropriate language regarding the claims resolution process.

If you have any questions about AB 456 or AB 1768, or public works projects in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also subscribe to our podcast, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn or download our mobile app.

Written by:

Anne L. Collins

Partner

Peter Y. Sumulong

Associate

©2019 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

New Law Expands Ban On Suspensions For “Willful Defiance” And “Disruption” In Both Public And Charter Schools, Emphasizes Importance Of Alternative Means

October 2019
Number 52

Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 419, which expands the existing ban on suspending students in grades K-3 for disrupting school activities or committing an act of willful defiance. The ban on such suspensions now extends to grades 4-5 permanently and to grades 6-8 for five years. The new law, which takes effect on July 1, 2020, applies to both traditional public schools and charter schools.

Subdivision (k), of Education Code section 48900, provides that a student may be suspended if he or she “disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully defied the valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties.” Subdivision (k) excludes grades K-3, and provides that such offenses may not be grounds for an expulsion recommendation. The law does not, however, define disruption or willful defiance. SB 419’s broader ban comes in response, in part, to criticism that this category of suspensions is an overly-broad and subjective catchall for any behavior a teacher finds objectionable, such as refusing to remove a hat, talking back, or refusing to follow school rules, and that its use disproportionately affects students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ students.

SB 419 permanently eliminates suspensions for disruption and willful defiance for students in kindergarten to grade 5, and temporarily for grades 6-8 (sunsetting on July 1, 2025, unless a subsequent law extends that date). SB 419 maintains the restriction on expelling any student if the sole basis for the expulsion was a disruption or willful defiance offense. These restrictions now apply to public and charter schools alike. SB 419 also now explicitly encourages school districts’ use of alternative disciplinary practices, including restorative justice practices, trauma-informed practices, social and emotional learning, and schoolwide positive behavior interventions and support.

SB 419 does not change existing law that allows a teacher to suspend a student from his or her own class for the day of the incident and the following day, so long as the student remains in school and a parent-teacher conference is offered as soon as possible. The new restrictions also do not apply to suspensions or recommendations for expulsion based on other grounds, such as acts related to violence, controlled substances, bullying, and vandalism.

SB 419 continues the Legislature’s efforts to reduce the total number of suspensions and expulsions in California’s schools. (See 2014 Client News Brief No. 72, and 2017 Client News Brief No. 65) The statewide action follows outright bans on suspensions for disruption and willful defiance for all grade levels by at least five school districts, including Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, Pasadena, and Azusa. The California Department of Education has reported a nearly 50 percent drop in suspensions statewide in the past six years for all categories of behavior, with willful defiance suspensions dropping even more sharply than suspensions for more serious behavior. In the 2011-2012 school year, willful defiance accounted for about half of the approximately 700,000 suspensions in the state. In the 2017-2018 school year, they made up only one-sixth of the approximately 360,000 suspensions.

School districts and charter schools should review, and potentially revise, their disciplinary policies and procedures, including suspension and expulsion forms, to ensure compliance with SB 419’s new restrictions. In addition, while not mandated by SB 419, school districts should consider updating their policies and procedures regarding the use of alternative means of correction, intervention strategies, and disciplinary optionsbefore imposing a suspension or recommendation for expulsion, given the Legislature’s encouragement and preference for such measures.

For more information about SB 419 or any other student discipline matter, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Thomas R. Manniello

Partner

Erin Frazor

Associate

©2019 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Court Clarifies Interplay Between Education Code Discipline And The Brown Act’s 24-Hour Notice Requirement

February 2019
Number 14

In Ricasa v. Office of Administrative Hearings, certified for publication on January 14, 2019, the California Court of Appeal attempted to harmonize an apparent dissonance between the Ralph M. Brown Act’s personnel exception, and the disciplinary procedures of the Education Code. The opinion constitutes the first time an appellate court has ruled on the Brown Act’s personnel exception in the context of community college districts, and the opinion’s implications reach to all public entities that discipline employees under the Education Code. Lozano Smith attorneys, including Mark Waterman (one of the authors of this news brief), successfully represented the community college on this appeal.

Background

Appellant Arlie Ricasa (Ricasa) served as the Director of Student Development for the Southwestern Community College District (Southwestern), while at the same time serving as an elected board member of a separate, but closely tied, entity, the Sweetwater Union High School District (Sweetwater). Ricasa was implicated in the Sweetwater scandal, which received substantial media coverage, and had criminal charges filed against her for counts that included bribery and corruption. As a Sweetwater board member, Ricasa voted on million-dollar vendor contracts while also receiving gifts from the contractors, including dinners and a scholarship for her daughter. She did not disclose the gifts on her required Economic Interest Form 700, and ultimately pled guilty to violating the Political Reform Act. Her guilty plea admitted she accepted gifts and failed to disclose them, and that the gifts were provided with the intent to influence her vote on business awarded to the contractor.

After Southwestern demoted Ricasa in compliance with the Education Code, Ricasa exercised her right to appeal the demotion to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), but lost her appeal on the merits. Ricasa also filed petitions in trial court to challenge the demotion, including on the ground that Southwestern’s Board violated the Brown Act by meeting in closed session without first providing Ricasa 24-hour notice under Government Code section 54957. The Superior Court denied Ricasa’s petitions generally, but ruled that the Brown Act required the college to give her 24-hour notice of the Board’s closed session discussion. Both sides appealed, and the Court confirmed that the Brown Act must be interpreted consistently with the Education Code when determining whether 24-hour notice is required.

Education Code Discipline and 24-Hour Notice under the Brown Act

The Education Code governs discipline of community college district employees, which may occur under section 87732 for immoral or unprofessional conduct, or for conviction of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude. The Education Code imposes specific procedural requirements for such discipline, including the board’s receipt of recommendations from the district’s superintendent/president, the receipt and consideration of certain information, the preparation of charges, and notice to the employee of the right to appeal the discipline via a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge.

The Brown Act generally requires that board meetings be open to the public. Closed sessions may be conducted only if authorized by statute. The relevant statutory authorization, often referred to as the personnel exception, is found in Government Code section 54957. The personnel exception allows a board in closed session to “consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee by another person or employee unless the employee requests an open public session.” [Emphasis added.] For the latter category of actions, the employee must be given 24-hour advance written notice of his or her right to have the complaints or charges heard in an open session.

Ricasa argued, and the Superior Court held, that the Education Code’s disciplinary requirements transformed the closed session into a “hearing” for which 24-hour notice was required. The Court of Appeal rejected Ricasa’s theory and clarified the interplay between the Education Code and the Brown Act. The Court of Appeal held that the presentation of charges and a recommendation by the district president (who was not a percipient witness) did not transform the closed session into a “hearing” requiring 24-hour notice, nor did the length of the closed session, the lack of a post-session announcement, or the closed session debate as to whether the facts in the guilty plea sufficed to impose discipline. The Court ruled that Ricasa’s contrary “interpretation would eviscerate the personnel exception by preventing the governing boards of community colleges from engaging in the type of ‘free and candid’ discussions that the Legislature has deemed necessary for them to manage their personnel.”

Takeaways

Disciplining employees without violating the Brown Act’s 24-hour notice rule involves complex, nuanced legal evaluations for which counsel should be consulted. The Ricasa opinion confirms that for educational agencies the Brown Act must be interpreted in light of the Education Code and that compliance with the mandatory Education Code disciplinary requirements does not necessarily transform a board’s closed session into a “hearing” requiring 24-hour notice. While the Court did not rule that Education Code compliance forecloses 24-hour notice in all Education Code disciplinary matters, it provided substantial clarification for how the Education Code and the Brown Act must be interpreted together so as not to “eviscerate” the personnel exception.

For additional information regarding the Ricasa opinion and how it may impact disciplinary matters in your district, please contact the author of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Mark W. Waterman

Partner

Marisa Montenegro

Associate

©2019 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

New Laws Increase State Control of Addiction Treatment Facilities, Require Student Athlete Opioid Warning

October 2018
Number 58

On September 26, Governor Jerry Brown signed a package of bills designed to enhance state regulation of licensed alcohol and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs). Governor Brown also signed Senate Bill (SB) 1109, which aims to better inform the public of the risks associated with the use of opioids. These bills take effect January 1, 2019 unless otherwise noted.

Senate Bill (SB) 992: Disclosure of Business Relationships; Developing Plans to Address Resident Relapse

SB 992 expands the types of facilities subject to licensing and regulatory requirements by broadening the definition of “alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility” to include facilities that provide residential nonmedical services for less than 24 hours per day. Additionally, SB 992 requires all RTFs and certified outpatient programs to publicly disclose ownership of, financial interest in, or control over recovery residences, which include residential dwellings commonly referred to as “sober living homes,” “sober living environments,” or “unlicensed alcohol and drug free residences.” RTFs must develop plans to address resident relapses, including details regarding how the resident’s treatment stay and treatment plan will be adjusted to address the relapse episode and how the resident will be treated and supervised while under the influence. It is unclear where the plans will be kept or who will enforce use of the plans.

Assembly Bill (AB) 3162: Facility Licenses and Increased Penalties for Unlicensed Operations

AB 3162 makes initial licenses to operate a new RTF provisional for one year and revocable by the Department of Health Care Services for good cause. It also requires licensed services offered or provided by an RTF to be specified on the license and provided exclusively within either the licensed facility or any facility identified on a single license by street address. AB 3162 also increases the civil penalty assessed by the Department of Health Care Services for providing recovery, treatment, or detoxification services without a license from $200 per day to $2,000 per day, and increases the penalties for a violation of the licensing and regulatory provisions from $25 to $50 per day for each violation to $250 to $500 per day for each violation.

SB 823: Evidence-Based Standard of Care for Licensed Facilities

RTFs currently vary in their level of service provided. SB 823 requires the Department of Health Care Services to adopt the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s treatment criteria, or an equivalent evidence-based standard, as the minimum standard of care for RTFs by January 1, 2023. The Department of Health Care Services will require RTFs to maintain those standards with respect to the level of care to be provided by the facilities.

SB 1228: Ban on Patient Brokering

SB 1228 prohibits RTFs and other alcohol or drug programs certified by the Department of Health Care Services and their employees from patient brokering, a practice in which patients are recruited to go to a treatment facility in exchange for cash payments, drugs, or other items of value. The Department of Health Care Services may investigate allegations of patient brokering and may, upon finding a violation, assess a penalty or impose other enforcement mechanisms. RTFs or other programs that engage in patient brokering may be fined or have their license or certification suspended or revoked. RTF or program employees who engage in patient brokering may be recommended for disciplinary action, such as termination of employment and suspension and revocation of licensure or certification.

SB 1109: Opioid Factsheet to Youth Athletes

SB 1109 requires school districts, charter schools, private schools, and youth sports organizations offering an athletic program, other than as part of the regular school day or as part of physical education, to annually give the Opioid Factsheet for Patients published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to each athlete. The athlete and, if the athlete is under 17, the athlete’s parent or guardian, must sign and return a document acknowledging receipt of the factsheet before the athlete begins practice or competition. Youth sports organizations include local government agencies that sponsor or conduct amateur sports competitions, training, camps, or clubs in which persons 17 years of age or younger participate.

If you have any questions about these new laws, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

William P. Curley, III

Partner

Jose Montoya

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

New Laws will Require Charter Schools to Provide Meals, Sexual Health Education

October 2018
Number 57

The Legislature has expanded requirements for charter schools in 2019. Assembly Bill (AB) 1871 will require charter schools to provide meals to needy students, while AB 2601 will require charters to provide sexual health education to students in grades 7-12.

Assembly Bill 1871

Starting on July 1, 2019, AB 1871 will require California charter schools to provide needy students with one nutritionally adequate free or reduced price meal each day. Charter schools were previously exempt from this state mandate. This change will be reflected by adding Education Code section 47613.5. Non-classroom based charter schools will be required to provide free and reduced price meals to eligible students on days when the students are scheduled for two or more hours of educational activities at a charter school facility.

For charter schools that become operational July 1, 2019, implementation of this requirement must occur no later than July 1 of the following school year.

Assembly Bill 2601

Starting on July 1, 2019, charter schools will be required to provide sexual health education and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention education to students in grades 7-12. Current law mandates that this sexual health education and HIV prevention education be provided to students in grades 7-12 in traditional schools. Charter schools, however, were exempt from this curriculum requirement. Again, the Legislature has now decided that providing sexual health and HIV prevention education to students in California schools outweighs the objective to provide freedom and flexibility to charter schools in developing their curriculums. This change will be reflected in Education Code section 51931.

Takeaways

Charter authorizers may want to explore the planned strategies of the charter schools they oversee to implement these two new mandates.

If you have any questions about AB 1871 or AB 2601 or about laws applicable to charter schools in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Supreme Court Rules Public Sector Union Agency Fees Are Unlawful

June 2018
Number 27

This news brief is intended for public school districts, including community colleges. For the Janus news brief intended for municipalities and special districts, click here.

Overturning a longstanding precedent, the United States Supreme Court has held in Janus v. AFSCME that public employees may not be compelled to pay mandatory agency fees, or “fair share” fees, to public-sector unions, because such fees violate the First Amendment.

The Janus decision will have a sweeping, nationwide impact on public sector labor unions. The Court’s 5-4 decision immediately affects laws in at least 22 states, including California, that currently allow public sector unions to charge and collect agency or fair share fees.

Background

Mark Janus is an Illinois public sector employee who sued the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), arguing that a state law allowing the union to charge and collect fees from non-members violated his and other workers’ First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court previously decided this issue in 1977 in the case of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, then holding it was constitutional for public sector unions to collect agency fees from nonunion members to defray the cost of collective bargaining and other activities, provided nonunion members were not required to pay for a union’s political or ideological activities. The Court now holds in Janus that states and public-sector unions may no longer collect agency fees from nonconsenting employees.

The Court held that compelling employees to subsidize the speech of private speakers, including public-sector unions, violates the First Amendment, noting that “[c]ompelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned.”

Critically, “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.” In anticipation of the ruling, California’s newly adopted Senate Bill (SB) 866, signed into law by the Governor on June 27, makes several changes regarding public employers’ deduction of union dues and fees. Among these is a requirement for public employers to rely on the representations of the union regarding an employee’s deduction authorizations. Given the Supreme Court’s holding, this provision of SB 866 potentially runs afoul of the First Amendment, as interpreted and applied in Janus.

Additional notable statements made by the Court in Janus include:

  • Unions can be effective even without agency fees, without which designation of a public-sector union as the exclusive representative still confers many benefits.
  • Representation of nonmembers, even without agency fees, furthers the union’s interest in keeping control of the administration of the collective bargaining agreement, since the resolution of one employee’s grievance can affect others.
  • Going forward, it would likely be unconstitutional for a public sector employer to adopt a collective bargaining agreement that discriminates against nonmember employees.
  • Individual employees who are not members of a union may potentially be required to pay for certain services of a union, such as representation at disciplinary proceedings.

Next Steps and Considerations for Public Agency Employers

1. Stop Agency Fee Deductions

The Court’s decision in Janus is effective immediately, meaning employees who are non-members cannot be charged agency fees. Accordingly, employers must stop deducting agency fees from the paychecks of public employees. Going forward, an employer may not deduct fees unless an employee clearly and affirmatively consents to the deduction before it is implemented.

SB 866 creates a layer of potential complication because it modifies the law to require public employers to rely on the representations of the union regarding an employee’s deduction authorizations. This likely leaves public agency employers with at least three potential options: (1) stop agency fee deductions immediately without communication with union leadership; (2) stop the agency fee deductions after providing a notice to union leadership as to the employees who the public agency believes to be agency fee payers and whose deductions will be halted with the July paycheck; or (3) stop the fee deductions after the union and public employer agree to the list of employees whose fee deductions will be halted, and rely on the new provisions of SB 866 requiring the union to defend and indemnify the employer in the event a fee payer brings suit to recover fees deducted subsequent to the issuance of the Janus decision.

To avoid future lawsuits, public agencies are encouraged to have their human resources and payroll departments work collaboratively with union leadership to identify employees who are agency fee payers and develop a strategy to ensure prompt compliance with Janus. For many public school district employers, working closely with their county office of education will be critical to accurately updating payroll records to ensure employees are no longer charged agency fees going forward.

2. Implement a Communication Plan

Public agency employers who have agency fee provisions in their union agreements should develop a communication plan to address the likely questions that will come from employees and unions in the days and weeks following this decision. Specifically, taking steps to identify a single point person to respond to questions regarding the impacts of theJanus decision will ensure cohesive and clear messaging and avoid the potential for managers and supervisors to inadvertently run afoul of laws prohibiting discouraging or deterring union membership. In developing these communication strategies regarding whether, and how, to communicate the Janus decision to employees, employers should remain neutral and mindful of applicable law, including SB 285, which prohibits employers from deterring or discouraging public employees from becoming or remaining members of a union, and SB 866, which restricts a public employer’s ability to communicate with employees about the Janus decision.

Specifically, under SB 866, any “mass communication” sent to employees or applicants concerning their rights to join or support or refrain from joining or supporting their union requires a meet and confer process with the applicable union. Any mass communication concerning the Janus decision will likely fall within this provision and requires the parties to attempt to craft a mutually agreeable content, or follow the alternate process of distributing two sets of mass communication: one from the employer and one from the union.

Public agency employers are further encouraged to provide an update on the case to their unrepresented managers and supervisors, along with governing board members, and to provide talking points in the event they are faced with questions about the Janus decision.

To assist our clients, we are developing a communication template. If you are interested in receiving this, please contact one of our offices.

3. Examine Collective Bargaining Agreements

After these immediate next steps are in place, in consultation with legal counsel, public agency employers should review their collective bargaining agreements to determine how the Court’s decision impacts current contract language, assess what articles are impacted by Janus, and determine whether any immediate action or negotiation is required.

While the Court’s decision may not immediately impact current dues-paying union members, some members could choose to opt out of union membership in the future as a result of the Court’s decision, in accordance with applicable collective bargaining agreements and membership agreement. To the extent membership in a union and attendant dues deductions are premised on an opt-out article or practice, wherein the employee is automatically in the union and automatically charged union dues unless he or she ops out, such provisions will need to be negotiated with the union to comply with Janus so that an employee clearly and affirmatively consents to union membership.

Related Bills

In addition to SB 866, please be aware that there are other bills pending in the California Legislature that address union dues and labor relations. Lozano Smith is tracking all of these pending bills and will provide updates if any are adopted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor.

Guidance Measures – Full Suite of Resources

Lozano Smith has partnered with leading associations and has also developed several training opportunities and resources to assist public agency employers in addressing new requirements and obligations. We invite you to download and register for any of the following:

  • Webinar: Join a panel of Lozano Smith attorneys for a live webinar on Friday, June 29. This interactive podcast will break down the Janus decision and SB 866 and offer a guide for implementation. Registration is open here.
  • Toolkit: Lozano Smith will be soon publishing an in-depth resource with answers to frequently asked questions, an implementation checklist, templates for communication, and more.
  • CASBO Workshop: The Northern Section Human Resources Professional Development Workshop Series will feature Dulcinea Grantham presenting a legal update exploring the impact of Janus. Registration is open here.
  • ACSA FAQ: Lozano Smith helped lead the development of a comprehensive overview specific to Janus and SB 866. This FAQ is available for download here.

For assistance responding to the immediate and long-term impacts of Janus, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Dulcinea Grantham

Partner

Gabriela D. Flowers

Senior Counsel

Erin M. Hamor

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.