Press Release from the California Legislative Women’s Caucus

The women’s caucus filed an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief in the case of U.S. v. Rahimi, arguing that the Supreme Court should overturn an appellate court decision that would invalidate the U.S.’s federal domestic violence restraining order law. The filing is believed to be the first Supreme Court amicus brief by a state-level women’s caucus.

The brief notes that if the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court that the federal domestic violence restraining order law is an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment, then California’s highly effective domestic violence restraining order law may also be invalidated, along with other California civil restraining order laws, including California’s gun violence restraining order law, also known as the “red flag” law.

“Since the California Legislative Women’s Caucus was founded nearly four decades ago, our caucus has championed legislation to reduce domestic violence and gun violence, because the undeniable fact is that women and children are overwhelmingly the victims of such violence,” said state Sen. Nancy Skinner, chair of the LWC. “More than half of women killed by gun violence are killed by intimate partners or other family members, and when it’s a domestic violence situation, the presence of a gun increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. Restraining orders that can remove guns from those who present a threat to themselves or others are highly effective in preventing gun violence.

“Our domestic violence orders and red flag laws save thousands of lives each year. If the Supreme Court were to invalidate these essential gun violence prevention laws, untold numbers of people, especially women, will die.”

“The sad reality is that over half of U.S. mass shootings are related to domestic violence. This is why our caucus has championed and prioritized legislation to protect women and children from being victims of gun violence. Gun safety laws are not created to infringe on the Second Amendment. They’re passed by a large majority to protect people from those who abuse firearms or should not have access to them in the first place,” said Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, vice chair of the LWC. “An abusive partner’s access to firearms can mean the difference between life and death. We cannot stand back and allow the Supreme Court to overturn a law protecting domestic violence victims from being killed.”

The women’s caucus’ amicus brief was prepared and filed with the help of the highly respected Oakland-based law firm, Olson Remcho LLP, which provided its legal services pro bono.

“Gun violence restraining orders and domestic violence restraining orders, as enacted into California law under the leadership of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus, are lifesaving legal tools,” said Karen Getman of Olson Remcho LLP, counsel for the caucus. “It is absurd that a court could find such laws invalid under the Second Amendment because this country had no precedent to protect women when the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1791.”

In Rahimi, the Supreme Court is reviewing a decision earlier this year by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the federal domestic violence restraining order law is an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment because the restraining order also results in the temporary confiscation of guns. Under a domestic violence restraining order, the person being restrained not only must stay away from the protected person but also must surrender their firearms for a specified period of time, following a civil court proceeding.

California’s domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) law contains the same provisions. California also has several other civil restraining order laws that result in temporary gun removal, including the state’s gun violence restraining order (GVRO) law, also known as California’s red flag law. That law, AB 1014, was originally authored in 2014 by Sen. Skinner when she was in the state Assembly. That law allows family members to petition a court to take away guns from a person who has been shown to be a violent threat to themselves or others.

California’s laws proactively prevent gun violence and are highly effective. According to the CDC, California has one of the lowest firearm mortality rates in the nation.

And research has shown that California’s GVRO, DVRO, and other civil restraining order laws that result in gun removal save lives. The laws also protect the due process rights of gun owners via civil court proceedings after a legal showing that the person represents a risk.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision in the Rahimi case next spring.

Olson Remcho is very pleased and proud to report that partner Karen Getman has been named to Capitol Weekly’s Top 100 for 2023.  Olson Remcho’s Robin Johansen and Lance Olson were previously named to the Top 100 list.  Getman also made the Top 100 list in 2022.

According to Capitol Weekly, “Karen Getman is a political attorney knowledgeable about the intricacies of political and campaign finance law, which is why powerful Democrat politicians come to her for counsel in droves. Gov. Gray Davis named her the first women chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission in 1999 after she had been an attorney in Joe Remcho’s political law firm. As FPPC chair she toughened enforcement campaign disclosure laws and worked to simplify some of the agency’s rules. After her four-year term ended, she returned to Remcho’s firm, around the time when the political legend died in a helicopter accident in 2003. The Remcho law firm merged with another Democratic political law firm in 2020; Getman was named the first managing partner of Olson Remcho. Getman boasts an undergrad from Yale and a law degree from Harvard, where she also served as editor-in-chief of the Harvard Women’s Law Journal.”

Proposition 12, which was passed by California voters in 2018, imposed new restrictions on whole pork meat sales, making distributors and sellers in California liable for criminal and civil sanctions if they knowingly distribute or sell pork raised in a manner that is not in compliance with Prop 12, whether or not the pork was raised in state.  Implementation of the law had been delayed by several legal challenges, but on May 11, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the proposition could go into effect.

Olson Remcho’s Tom Willis, Karen Getman, and Inez Kaminski have been representing a group of restaurants, groceries, butchers and other retailers who had sought to stop the law from being enforced until the state  finalized regulations and implemented a system by which farmers can be certified for complying with Prop 12 and that certification can pass through the distribution chain, giving those end users a good faith defense against prosecution. They filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce vs. Ross, that resulted in a ruling on February 2, 2022, that California suppliers, restaurants and retailers would not be subject to enforcement of Proposition 12 until 180 days after the state enacts final regulations.  Plaintiffs include California Grocers Association, California Restaurant Association, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Retailers Association and Kruse & Sons, a meat processor.

After the Supreme Court decision in May 2023, the parties in the lawsuit negotiated a stipulated judgment from the Court that allows for the  continued sale, through the end of the year, of pork products that were existing in the  supply chain as of July 1, 2023.  The stipulation provides the  pork industry more time to comply with the new law and reduces the risks that the supply of pork to California consumers will be interrupted.

On June 28, 2023 the California Supreme Court granted SEIU’s request to decide the constitutionality of Proposition 22 — the 2020 ballot measure exempting companies like Uber, Lyft and Doordash from treating drivers as employees. Olson Remcho and co-counsel filed the appeal on behalf of SEIU and other plaintiffs after an appeals court ruled in March that Proposition 22 could stand as state law, reversing a 2021 Alameda Superior Court decision that declared Prop 22 unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court could rule on the case early next year.

In the lower court’s ruling in favor of California app-based drivers, rideshare consumers and labor unions in August 2021, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled that Proposition 22, which exempted companies like Uber, Lyft and Doordash from treating drivers as employees, was unconstitutional. According to Judge Roesch’s ruling, Proposition 22 unconstitutionally “limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.” He concludes his order by stating “A prohibition on legislation authorizing collective bargaining by app-based drivers does not promote the right to work as an independent contractor, nor does it protect work flexibility, nor does it provide minimum workplace safety and pay standards for those workers. It appears only to protect the economic interests of the network companies in having a divided, unionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation.”

On April 21, 2023 attorneys from Olson Remcho and co-counsel filed an appeal with the California Supreme Court in Castellanos v. State of California on behalf of the SEIU and other plaintiffs. An appeals court ruled in March that Proposition 22 could stand as state law, reversing a 2021 Alameda Superior Court decision that declared Prop 22 unconstitutional.

According to a Sacramento Bee article on the filing of the appeal, Plaintiffs “argue that because the California constitution requires the Legislature to enforce a ‘complete’ workers compensation program, carving out independent contractors violates that constitutional mandate. If the Prop. 22 proponents wanted to change employment benefits law, they would’ve needed to do so through a constitutional amendment, the opponents say.”

In the lower court’s ruling in favor of California app-based drivers, rideshare consumers and labor unions in August 2021, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled that Proposition 22, which exempted companies like Uber, Lyft and Doordash from treating drivers as employees, was unconstitutional. According to Judge Roesch’s ruling, Proposition 22 unconstitutionally “limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.” He concludes his order by stating “A prohibition on legislation authorizing collective bargaining by app-based drivers does not promote the right to work as an independent contractor, nor does it protect work flexibility, nor does it provide minimum workplace safety and pay standards for those workers. It appears only to protect the economic interests of the network companies in having a divided, unionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation.”

On December 13, 2022 a panel of justices of the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco heard arguments in Castellanos v. State of California in the appeal of a 2021 Alameda Superior Court decision that declared Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.  Olson Remcho is co-counsel for the SEIU and other plaintiffs in this case. 

According to a December 12 article in Bloomberg Law, “The next battle in the long-running California war over who’s an employee and who’s an independent contractor will take place in a San Francisco courtroom with arguments on the constitutionality of a voter-approved, court-suspended initiative carving out gig workers from the state’s worker-friendly classification law. Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc., DoorDash, and Instacart Inc. bankrolled the inititiave known as Proposition 22, spending more than $200 million to get it passed in November 2020.”  A ruling from the court is expected in 90 days with an appeal to the the California Supreme Court likely to follow.

In a major victory for California app-based drivers, rideshare consumers and labor unions in August 2021, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled  that Proposition 22, which exempted companies like Uber, Lyft and Doordash from treating drivers as employees, was unconstitutional.  According to Judge Roesch’s ruling, Proposition 22 unconstitutionally “limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.” He concludes his order by stating “A prohibition on legislation authorizing collective bargaining by app-based drivers does not promote the right to work as an independent contractor, nor does it protect work flexibility, nor does it provide minimum workplace safety and pay standards for those workers.  It appears only to protect the economic interests of the network companies in having a divided, unionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation.”  (See California Judge Rules that Proposition 22 is Unconstitutional.) 

Selected media coverage:

Justice’s Quiz Prop 22 Defenders on Reach of Worker Classification Law, The Recorder, December 13, 2022. 

Gig Workers, Prop. 22 Backers Resume War Over Initiative’s Fate, Bloomberg Law, December 12, 2022.

As reported by The Recorder on December 9, 2022, Olson Remcho will be representing California Governor Gavin Newsom in two federal lawsuits challenging SF 1327 – the so-called bounty hunter gun law – after Attorney General Rob Bonta announced he would be withdrawing from the case.  

The statute, modeled after the law in Texas which created a private right of action to enforce the state’s abortion restrictions, allows individuals in California to sue those who make or sell illegal guns in the state.

If Texas is permitted to advance its chosen policy interests under precisely the same procedural mechanism, then so too should California.

The Olson Remcho team, led by Tom Willis, filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of the Governor, stating: “The governor believes that the legal viability of this duly enacted statute must be fully litigated and decided by the courts. If Texas is permitted to advance its chosen policy interests under precisely the same procedural mechanism, then so too should California.”

Governor Turns to Olson Remcho to Defend Bounty-Hunter Gun Law, The Recorder, December 9, 2022

Olson Remcho’s Richard Rios filed a complaint with California state officials on October 27 on behalf of the Service Employees International Union California (SEIU) alleging that a fast-food industry coalition is violating state election rules in its attempt to repeal the Fast Food Recovery Act (AB257). which was signed into law in September and will increase protections for fast food workers. (See California union alleges that fast-food effort to block new labor law is ‘willfully misleading voters’, Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2022.)

The complaint alleges that the coalition’s signature-gathering campaign, which seeks to qualify the referendum for the November 2024 ballot, is “willfully misleading voters” by hiring paid petition circulators who ask voters to sign the petition under the false pretense that the referendum will raise the minimum wage for fast food workers.  As Rios writes in the complaint, “The campaign literature, materials and other messaging clearly demonstrate an effort to persuade voters to sign a petition based on false and misleading information.”  

According to the SEIU, “The FAST Recovery Act is the culmination of years of worker organizing across the state that immigrants and people of color have led. AB 257 gives workers the power to tackle systemic economic and racial justice issues that have plagued the fast-food industry because they will be at the table crafting the solutions they want to see. By passing AB 257 – the FAST Recovery Act, California will create a sector council where workers, fast-food employers, and government officials work together to craft common-sense solutions to the issues that have long plagued the industry. Frontline workers are best-positioned to help propose and implement solutions to the daily problems they face on the job. The FAST Recovery Act brings workers to the table and gives them a chance to rewrite the rules so that rules keep them safe.”  (It’s the final push for a FAST Recovery, August 16, 2022.)

Olson Remcho’s Andrew Werbrock is counsel to the San Diego Democratic Party.  As reported by the Times of San Diego on October 14, Werbrock was successful in getting a local Political Action Committee to agree to stop sending deceptive mailers about Democratic candidates.  See East County PAC Agrees to Quit Sending Mailers Decried by Dems as Misleading.