CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT UPDATE: [br]City’s Study Of Police Racial Profiling Is Not Subject To Government Code “Meet And Confer” Requirement

In Claremont Police Officers Association v. City of Claremont (2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,655, Cal., Aug. 14, 2006), the California Supreme Court considered whether a city policy requiring police officers to note the race or ethnicity of motorists they pulled over was subject to a state law requiring local governments to meet and confer with employee organizations about actions that concern the conditions of employment. The city policy was part of a larger study to determine whether officers were engaging in racial profiling.

The Court, finding that the policy’s effect on officers’ working conditions was minimal, ruled that the City was not required to meet and confer with the police officers association before implementing it.

Facts

In 2002, the City of Claremont (“City”) Police Commission decided to undertake a study to determine if city police officers were engaging in racial profiling when pulling over motorists. The study required officers on vehicle stops to complete a form asking about the driver’s race or ethnicity, and whether they had noticed it before making the stop.

The Claremont Police Officers Association (“Association”) requested that the city meet and confer with the Association before implementing the study, citing California Government Code Section 3505, which requires local governments to “meet and confer” with employee organizations about matters which concern employees’ “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” The City responded that the study did not fall within that scope, declined to meet, and ordered the study to begin.

The Association filed suit to compel the City not to begin the study without first meeting and conferring with the Association. The Superior Court declined the petition, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the implementation of the study would significantly affect officers’ working conditions. The City appealed to the California Supreme Court.

Decision

The Court cited its prior decision in Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell, (1986) 41 Cal.3d 651, in which it ruled that the “meet and confer” requirement applied when a local government’s action or policy had “a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees.”

To apply the Building Material test in this case, the Court reviewed the actual effect that implementing the study would have on officers during the course of their work. It found that filling out the form takes about two minutes, and that officers would typically fill out four to six of them during the course of a shift. The Court ruled that the superior court was correct in concluding that the impact on the officers’ working conditions was minimal, and the Court of Appeal erred in reaching a different conclusion.

The Court concluded that since the study did not have a significant and adverse effect on the officers’ working conditions, the City was not obligated to meet with the Association prior to implementing it.

Legal Alert Disclaimer

Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.