Laserfiche WebLink
MORRISON I FOERSTER <br />for "equal protections of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Cal. Const. art I, § 7(a). <br />This guarantee is "essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated <br />alike" and "secure[s] every person within the State's jurisdiction against intentional and <br />arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper <br />execution through duly constituted agents." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 <br />U.S. 432, 439 (1985); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). No law <br />may draw classifications that do not "rationally further a legitimate state interest." <br />Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992). By requiring that any classification "bear a <br />rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, [courts] ensure that <br />classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by law." <br />Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996). <br />As discussed above, these ordinances unfairly target traditional grocery companies and <br />ignore other generic retailers and other businesses that employ frontline workers. See Fowler <br />Packing Co., Inc. v. Lanier, 844 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2016) ("[L]egislatures may not draw <br />lines for the purpose of arbitrarily excluding individuals," even to "protect" those favored <br />groups' "expectations."); Hays v. Wood, 25 Cal. 3d 772, 786-87 (1979) ("[N]othing opens <br />the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow [state] officials to pick and choose only <br />a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that <br />might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected."). Moreover, as an ordinance <br />that would impinge on fundamental rights to be free of legislative impairment of existing <br />contractual agreements, this ordinance would be subject to heightened scrutiny by courts. <br />See, e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982); Hydrick v. Hunter, 449 F.3d 978, 1002 <br />(9th Cir. 2006); Long Beach City Employees Ass'n v. City of Long Beach, 41 Cal. 3d 937, 948 <br />(1986). The City's unilateral modification of contractual terms governing wages and hours <br />of grocery employees would go to the very heart of bargained -for agreements. <br />For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully request that the City Council reject any <br />proposal for a hazard pay ordinance. <br />Sincerely, <br />William F. Tarantino <br />Cc: Redwood City Council <br />Ms. Giselle Hale <br />Ms. Alicia C. Aguirre <br />Ms. Lissette Espinoza-Garnica <br />Mr. Jeff Gee <br />sf-4441468 <br />