Gavin Newsom's Return-to-Office Order Sparks Union Lawsuit Before July Deadline

Caption: Gavin Newsom speaking at a podium in Sacramento in 2020. Credit: Office of the Governor of California, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

A California state employee union is challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom’s return-to-office mandate using an unusual legal theory, arguing the policy itself amounts to an environmental violation under one of the state’s signature climate laws.

What You Should Know

The California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment, known as CASE, filed a writ petition June 5 alleging Newsom’s four-day-per-week in-office requirement, set to take effect July 1, violates the California Environmental Quality Act by skipping a required environmental impact report, according to Bloomberg Law. CASE points to a state auditor estimate that the mandate would generate roughly 15,115 additional metric tons of carbon dioxide a month from added commuting.

The Pressure Point

CASE President Talene Ghazarian argues the state has not seriously considered telework as a “feasible alternative,” noting that hybrid arrangements have functioned for years, according to Davis Vanguard. Legal scholars are split on the theory’s strength: UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf called it “a very plausible argument,” while UC Berkeley’s Catherine Fisk said it “sounds like a stretch” and that CEQA review for an in-person work policy had “never even crossed anyone’s mind” before.

The Receipts

Newsom’s office said it will review the complaint and respond in court, while California’s Department of Human Resources declined to comment on pending litigation, according to Bloomberg Law. The state’s largest public employee union, SEIU Local 1000, representing roughly 95,000 workers, has separately warned the mandate could trigger a wave of retirements and departures.

What Happens Next

CASE is seeking an injunction to halt the order and force a formal environmental review before it takes effect. With the July 1 deadline now arrived, the case’s outcome will determine whether California’s landmark environmental law can be used to delay a workplace policy that has nothing to do with construction or development.

References: Bloomberg Law | Davis Vanguard