Discussion Of Legal Developments Merited On Proposed Doffing/Donning Settlement Tonight

(April 15, 2014, 12:10 p.m.) -- As LBREPORT.com has previously reported, an item on tonight's (April 15) City Council agenda brings to a public Council vote proposed settlement of nine police officers'"doffing and donning" lawsuits. As our coverage reported, tonight's agendized item is accompanied by a short memo from City Attorney Charles Parkin indicating the settlement basically mirrors previous settlement of "doffing and donning" lawsuits brought by roughly 790 other officers.

That previous settlement came several years ago...and we urge City Attorney Parkin to take the opportunity tonight to explain the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court's January 27, 2014 ruling in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp (which we believe held that an employer isn't required to pay union employees for time spent putting on/taking off protective gear if their collective bargaining agreement doesn't make that time compensable) does or doesn't affect the legal posture of the claims by the nine police officers proposed for settlement tonight. (The US Supreme Court blog discussion of the case is at this link.. The full Court opinion is here.)

We're also aware that in March 2014, the 7th circuit [not our 9th circuit] U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that time spent changing at the start/end of a non-compensable meal break isn't compensable time. This is obviously an active legal area.

Litigation turns on applying legal principles to specific facts. We honestly don't know the extent to which these recent cases may affect the nine cases proposed for settlement tonight. The LB doffing and donning allegations may or may not be distinguishable. [We presume these matters have already been discussed in closed sessions in which Council majorities presumably agreed to settlement; the public Council vote tonight is a separate legally required check and balance.]

Of course we're aware that the LB Police Officers Ass'n (which wasn't a part to the donning/doffing litigation) has through its PAC supported Mr. Parkin and blasted City Attorney candidate / Councilman James Johnson. An independent expenditure committee led by retired City Attorney Bob Shannon has also backed Mr. Parkin. For his part, Councilman Johnson's campaign has sandpapered City Attorney Parkin for being, well, a dirty rotten Republican, a low brow politicized appeal in what is supposed to be a non-partisan office; Dems are expected to turn out in large numbers for a June runoff that includes state office races.) Meanwhile, third place April finisher Matt Pappas (who garnered about 17% of the vote) has endorsed Johnson.

The stakes in the City Attorney's race are in some respects even higher than Mayoral and remaining Council races. The City Attorney has the power, in effect, to tell Councilmembers, the Mayor and city agencies (City Hall and Port) what they can do or can't legally do. More on this later.

We acknowledge that all of this provides a less than stellar atmosphere for calm legal discussion tonight, but that atmosphere comes with the territory. We favor hearing an explanation from City Attorney Parkin of his office's view of the extent to which, if at all, the recent cases do or don't affect the settlement proposed for Council settlement tonight.

Follow LBReport.com w/