SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A union representing California state attorneys, administrative law judges and hearing officers has filed a lawsuit against the State of California, arguing that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s four-day-per-week in-person work mandate violates the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.
The lawsuit contends that the state failed to conduct a legally required environmental review before implementing a policy that could significantly increase commuting, vehicle traffic and greenhouse gas emissions across California.
CASE (California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment), the union representing legal professionals employed by the state, announced that it filed a writ petition challenging the return-to-office requirement, contending that the state failed to conduct a legally required environmental review before implementing the policy.
According to the union, the mandate will require more than 90,000 state employees to commute to state offices four days each week, resulting in increased vehicle traffic and higher greenhouse gas emissions throughout California.
The lawsuit follows CEQA exhaustion letters that CASE sent to 96 state agencies and departments. The letters argued that the return-to-office requirement constitutes a project under CEQA because of its potential environmental impacts and therefore requires an Environmental Impact Report before implementation.
Union officials cited findings from a recent California State Auditor report indicating that the policy could generate approximately 15,115 additional metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per month as workers return to offices and spend more time commuting.
CASE President Talene Ghazarian criticized the mandate, arguing that telework has proven effective for state employees and has allowed agencies to recruit and retain qualified legal professionals while reducing costs and environmental impacts.
According to Ghazarian, telework policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that many state legal services could be be performed effectively without requiring employees to travel to offices on a daily basis. She argued that the administration has disregarded evidence supporting remote work while failing to address the environmental consequences of increased commuting.
The lawsuit focuses primarily on whether the state was required to complete an Environmental Impact Report before implementing the mandate. Under CEQA, government agencies generally must evaluate and disclose significant environmental impacts associated with projects before moving forward.
Attorney Richard Drury of Lozeau Drury LLP, who filed the petition on behalf of the union, stated that California law requires environmental review to occur before a project is enacted rather than after implementation. He said the union intends to present its arguments before the court in the coming weeks.
Supporters of telework have argued that remote and hybrid work arrangements provide benefits beyond employee convenience. They contend that reduced commuting can lower greenhouse gas emissions, decrease traffic congestion and reduce costs associated with maintaining office space.
Union representatives also argue that telework has helped improve recruitment and retention within state government, particularly among legal professionals who may have opportunities to work remotely in the private sector.
Ivan Waggoner, a CASE director and chair of the union’s Telework Committee, stated that telework allows legal professionals to continue serving the public while reducing costs and environmental impacts. He described remote work as a sustainable and cost-effective option that should remain available to state employees.
The dispute highlights an ongoing debate over workplace policies as many employers continue reevaluating remote work arrangements established during the pandemic. While some organizations have embraced permanent hybrid work models, others have increasingly required employees to return to offices.
The lawsuit also reflects broader tensions between environmental goals and workplace policies. California has positioned itself as a national leader on climate initiatives and greenhouse gas reduction efforts, making the environmental arguments raised in the case particularly significant.
If successful, the lawsuit could require the state to conduct a formal environmental review before continuing implementation of the mandate. Such a review would examine potential environmental impacts and consider possible alternatives or mitigation measures.
The state has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit. Court proceedings are expected to determine whether the return-to-office policy falls within CEQA’s requirements and whether environmental review should have been completed before the mandate took effect.
The case could have implications not only for California state workers but also for future discussions about remote work, environmental policy and government workplace practices throughout the state.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
