This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Equal Protection
Premium Pay for Grocery Workers Ordinance

California Grocers Association v. City of Long Beach

Published: Sep. 3, 2021 | Result Date: Aug. 9, 2021 | Filing Date: Jan. 20, 2021 |

Case number: 2:21-cv-00524-ODW-AS D Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Otis D. Wright II

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Tritia M. Murata
(Davis, Wright & Tremaine LLP)

Byung-Kwan Park
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)

William F. Tarantino
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)


Defendant

Jeffrey V. Dunn
(Best, Best & Krieger LLP)

Christopher M. Pisano
(Best, Best & Krieger LLP)


Facts

Defendant City of Long Beach enacted an ordinance called Premium Pay for Grocery Workers mandating that grocery workers in the area be paid four dollars more than their hourly wage for a period of at least 120 days. The ordinance was enacted to combat the effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The same ordinance also stopped the reduction of pay or the limitation of grocery workers' earning capacity. Plaintiff California Grocers Association sought a preliminary injunction against the City. The Ordinance only applied to grocery stores that employ over 300 grocery workers nationally and employ more than 15 employees per grocery store in the City of Long Beach.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contented that the ordinance only targeted large grocery employers without justifying the exclusion of other essential worker employers. Plaintiff contended the ordinance was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiff also contended the ordinance violated the Contracts Clause because it substantially impairs collective bargaining agreements. Further, that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause because it burdens fundamental rights.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

Defendant City of Long Beach's motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.


#137625

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390