Deputy Sheriff's Association lawsuit against Placer County continues

The Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association (DSA) has filed a second-amended writ of mandate in its lawsuit against Placer County. Both parties have been in negotiations since March 2018. The Placer County Board of Supervisors approved Ordinance 6104-B on Sept. 14, 2021, to impose the county's proposal of salary increases, amending incentive pay from percentage to flat amount and providing Tahoe Branch Assignment Pay for deputies who live within 50 driving miles of the Burton Creek Substation to offset housing costs in the Lake Tahoe area. The implemented proposal does not utilize the voter-approved Measure F (formerly part of the Placer County Code), which previously determined the maximum salaries of similar positions in Sacramento, Nevada and El Dorado counties to calculate the average of those salaries to set a salary at an equal level for compensation. The Placer County Superior Court issued a ruling May 17 regarding the county's Feb. 2 notice of demurrer. The ruling notes the DSA's allegations that the county violated the California Constitution and Elections Code by adopting the proposal now used for setting deputies' salaries and repealing Measure F without submitting it to voters "are sufficiently pleaded to proceed with the litigation." The ruling also notes the DSA's request for declaratory relief (having the court intervene and resolve the dispute) was also sufficiently pleaded. The court also found the DSA's allegation against the county for failing to abide by Measure F following the imposition of its offer on Sept. 14, 2021 were "conclusory in nature, failing to allege facts in support of the cause of action." The DSA has the ability to amend this cause of action. According to DSA Attorney David Mastagni, the court's ruling means, "The case moves forward with discovery and ultimately a trial on the merits, i.e. the final determination. The court did not make ruling as to who will ultimately win." The DSA filed the second-amended writ on May 27. Within the amendment, the DSA maintains the violation noting Measure F remains "in full force and effect" as it was not presented to voters prior to the repeal. According to Mastagni, the county will have the opportunity to respond to the amendment but cannot try to dismiss the other two actions the court sustained. The Auburn Journal reached out to the county for comment and received the following statement: "The trial court's ruling failed to address the straightforward legal questions presented in the writ. The Board of Supervisors looks forward to the mutually beneficial completion of the ongoing labor negotiations with the DSA and a definitive legal ruling on the Board's authority to negotiate salaries on behalf of the Placer community." Mastagni confirmed negotiations continue between the parties, and the DSA has requested that the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to set hearing dates as an agreement has not been reached. "If we (DSA) prevail in either the PERB complaint or the writ action, the county will have to provide its deputies back pay and restore the prior compensation practices (Measure F formula)," Mastagni said.