Linn Cnty. v. Brown
| Decision Date | 01 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | A165655 |
| Parties | LINN COUNTY, Douglas County, and Yamhill County, each a local government of the State of Oregon, Plaintiffs-Respondents, and Jefferson County, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kate BROWN, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Oregon; and Val Hoyle, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Keith L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellants. Also on the briefs were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Sharon A. Rudnick, Eugene, argued the cause for respondents. Also on the brief were William F. Gary, Susan Marmaduke, and Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C.
Steven C. Berman and Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, PC, filed the brief amicus curiae for Family Forward Oregon.
Before Powers, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and DeVore, Judge.*
In a declaratory judgment action, three counties challenge their obligation to provide their employees paid sick leave as required of many Oregon employers by ORS 653.601 to 653.661. The counties contend that they are excused from the obligation under Article XI, section 15, of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that a local government is not required to comply with a state law that requires a local government to "establish a new program or provide an increased level of service for an existing program" when the state fails to provide adequate funding. The trial court agreed, granted the counties’ motion for summary judgment, and entered a judgment that made rulings declaring the paid sick leave law to be an unfunded program. The governor and labor commissioner appeal from that judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in its broad interpretation of Article XI, section 15. We agree, concluding that the paid sick leave law is not an unfunded program of services to others within the meaning of Article XI, section 15. Consequently, the trial court erred in granting the counties’ motion and entering a declaratory judgment for the counties. We reverse and remand.1
Initially, plaintiffs, then nine Oregon counties, filed a complaint in which they alleged that the paid sick leave law compelled them to spend money on a new program or to spend more money for an existing program without any or enough state reimbursement, in violation of Article XI, section 15.2 They sought a declaratory judgment to that effect and injunctive relief pursuant to ORS 28.020 and ORS 28.080.3 Defendants, the governor and labor commissioner, responded that the constitutional measure did not apply, adding that, even if the measure applied, all nine counties did not spend more than one-hundredth of one percent of a county’s annual budget, which Article XI, subsection 15(3), set as a threshold of applicability.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In its initial ruling, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion and denied defendants’ motion. On reconsideration, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion in part and denied it in part. The court held that the state’s sick leave law was an unfunded program within the meaning of Article XI, section 15, but also determined that plaintiffs had not yet established that the counties met the measure’s cost threshold. Thereafter, the parties stipulated that six of the nine counties failed to meet the cost threshold and that their claims should be dismissed in a limited judgment. The parties agreed, however, that Linn, Douglas, and Yamhill counties met the cost threshold. For those three counties, the trial court entered a general judgment declaring that Article XI, section 15, excused them from compliance with the paid sick leave law.
To frame the issue, we describe the statutory and constitutional provisions at issue before recounting the parties’ arguments and the trial court’s opinion. Enacted by Oregon Laws 2015, chapter 537, the paid sick leave law requires employers of 10 or more employees to implement a sick time policy that allows an employee to earn and use up to 40 hours of paid sick time per year. ORS 653.606(1)(a) ; ORS 653.601(2) (defining "employer").4 The law is equally applicable to private and public employers, specifically including cities, counties, various districts, and other public entities. ORS 653.601(2). Employers may adopt policies limiting employees’ accrual of sick leave to 80 hours and permitting use of no more than 40 hours per year. ORS 653.606 (3)(a), (b). Sick leave may be used for an employee’s "mental or physical illness, injury or health condition, need for medical diagnosis, care or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury or health condition or need for preventative medical care," or for care of a family member with those needs. ORS 653.616(1), (2). An employer may, but is not required to, direct an employee to provide verification from a health care provider of the need for sick time or certification of the need for family leave, when the employee uses sick leave for more than three consecutive days, ORS 653.626(1)(a), but the employer must pay reasonable costs, if any incurred for providing the verification or certification, ORS 653.626(2). The sick leave law does not affect any employer policy or standard that provides for a greater use of paid or unpaid sick time. ORS 653.636. And, the sick leave law does not apply to employees subject to collective bargaining agreements or consumer-employed home-care workers whose sick time policy is established by the Home Care Commission. ORS 653.646(1), (2). The parties agree that the legislature did not appropriate funds to local governments or private employers to implement paid sick leave.
The unfunded programs measure, section 15 of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution, was originally adopted by Oregon voters in 1996 as Ballot Measure 30 after a legislative referral in the preceding year. House Joint Resolution (HJR) 2, para. 1 (sec. 15) (1995); Oregon Laws 1997, ix (Vote on Statewide Measures, Nov. 5, 1996, Measure 30 (HJR 2)). Because the original measure included a sunset provision, HJR 2, para. 1 (section 15a), the measure was resubmitted and readopted by voters in 2000 as Ballot Measure 84.
Oregon Laws 2001, x (Vote on Statewide Measures, Nov. 7, 2001, Measure 84 (Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 39 (2001)). Article XI, section 15, provides:
(Emphases added.) In light of those provisions, the question in the trial court and on appeal is whether the paid sick leave law constitutes a "program" that requires "a local government" to "provide * * * services to persons, government agencies, or the public generally." Or. Const, Art XI,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Linn Cnty. v. Brown
...that require unfunded government programs to actively perform, provide, or deliver services to others." Linn County v. Brown , 297 Or. App. 330, 342, 443 P.3d 700 (2019) (emphasis in original). The court looked to existing statutory and constitutional frameworks, the voters’ pamphlet statem......
- State v. Minor