A
Service Employees International Union unit whose members got a pay boost from a local California hazard pay law asked to defend the measure against a federal lawsuit by the hospital whose workers it represents.
SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, which represents about 575 workers at the Southern California Hospital at Culver City, argued in a motion to intervene Monday that it's entitled to join the suit as one of the measure's chief proponents and a group whose members stand to see a temporary $5 hourly pay bump if the law stands.
"These types of interests are well-established grounds for intervention: courts routinely grant intervention to public interest groups seeking to intervene in order to defend legislation that benefits their members and for which they have advocated," the union said.
The hospital
sued Culver City in California federal court June 22, alleging its new law requiring that hospitals in the city provide workers so-called hazard pay during the coronavirus pandemic.
The law, which the city council passed by a 3-2 vote earlier this month, requires hospitals to pay workers $5 extra per hour for 120 days starting July 14.
Southern California Hospital, which
moved to enjoin the law Friday, argues the measure violates the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against it as the only affected health care facility in the city. The hospital also says the measure is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act by altering the terms of its contract with SEIU-UHW, claiming the union spearheaded the ordinance with that goal in mind.
The union argued Monday that this and other links entitle it to intervene in the lawsuit to defend the law.
Federal courts recognize a general right among entities that aren't named in lawsuits but have skin in the game to timely join cases to protect their interests. In the Ninth Circuit, courts considering motions to intervene look to whether they are timely; the would-be intervener has a "significantly protectable" interest in the subject of the suit; the outcome will "impair or impede" the party's ability to protect its interest; and whether the named parties already represent those interests.
The union checks these boxes, it said Monday. The motion is timely because it comes less than a week after the hospital sued, SEIU said. As a "primary proponent" of the law and the bargaining representative of its main beneficiaries, it has distinct interests in the ordinance, the union added.
The union meets the third prong because the hospital's goal — a judgment voiding the law — "would clearly impair SEIU-UHW's members' interest by preventing them from receiving the hazard pay they would otherwise receive," and such a ruling could preclude other cities from enacting similar legislation affecting members, it said. And SEIU-UHW is better equipped than the city to defend its interest because that interest is narrower than the city's, and it has specific expertise in the pandemic's impact on the health care industry, the union said.
Even if the court does not find the union has a right to intervene, it should permit the union to join anyway because of its closeness to the dispute, the union said.
Bruce Harland, SEIU-UHW's general counsel, called the suit meritless and said it "dishonors health care heroes."
"Although Southern California Health System received millions in dollars of CARES Act funding, it now complains that providing a modest heroes pay to health care workers is unfair," he said.
Hospital representatives did not respond to the union's motion Tuesday but provided a general statement on the suit to Law360, saying it intends "to vigorously fight this unfair and special interest-influenced ordinance."
The city attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The union is represented by Catha Worthman and Genevieve Casey of
Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP and Bruce Harland and William Hanley of
Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld.
Southern California Hospital at Culver City is represented by Zachary James Golda, David A. Schwarz, Barbara E. Taylor and James V. Fazio III of
Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP.
Attorneys for the City of Culver City were not available Tuesday.
The case is Southern California Healthcare System Inc. v. City of Culver City et al., case number
2:21-cv-05052, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
--Additional reporting by Max Kutner and Irene Spezzamonte. Editing by Neil Cohen.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.