We had a question after SEIU Local 1000 won its furlough lawsuit on behalf of workers it represents at State Compensation Insurance Fund. You'll recall that San Francisco Superior Court Judge Charlotte Woolard case said the state owed back wages plus 7 percent interest. Click here if you need a refresher on that decision.
But what about the trailblazing lawsuit that cleared the path for Local 1000's win? California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment was the first union to successfully argue that furloughs equaled staff cuts at the fund and as such are forbidden by law. Here's where you can read more about that.
But the CASE ruling didn't specify interest on the back pay. So we called CASE attorney Patrick Whalen and asked whether that was an oversight. It took a while for Whalen to get back to us -- he was out of the country -- but here's what he said:
Click the link below to read an e-mail from Whalen.
From: Ellison Wilson Advocacy
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 10:59 AM
To: Ortiz, Jon - Sacramento
Subject: Delayed responseJon:
Just got back from vacation in Europe and in checking my numerous cell phone messages (which was turned off - doesn't work in Europe), heard yours from a while ago.
Short answer to your question re interest is that we believe we are covered by Woolard's order since it applied to all SCIF employees. Our understanding is the SCIF and Controller are working on calculating the interest but it is a different process than simply reimbursing for salary, and so will take some time.
Pat
The Author
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.