The City Attorney informed the City Council on Tuesday that a class action suit brought by 792 city police officers seeking wages for among other things, off-the-clock donning of uniforms and equipment, is likely to cost the city more than $1 million in legal fees and could cost the city "tens of millions" if the city loses.
  
In addition, City Manager Pat West told the Council that the city has no reserve to pay such a judgment and any payments would likely have to come from the police department budget, necessitating police support staff cuts.
  
The discussion came while the Council was considering a motion to add another $200,000 to the contract with outside law firm of Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson that have been representing the city in the case. The motion, approved 8-1 (Lerch dissenting) following a closed session hearing on the lawsuit, raises the total amount of the legal defense contract to $895,000.
  
The lawsuit, City Attorney Robert Shannon told the Council Tuesday, "makes various allegations to the effect that officers are entitled to be compensated for a number of small duties... incidental duties... that they have not in the past been compensated for."
  
In addition to the donning of uniforms and doffing of gear, the "incidental duties" listed in the suit include – among other things – firing at the range, shining of boots, waiting in court, and attending classes.
  
Shannon indicated that the amount being spent on defending the city is justifiable, given the possible outcome.
  
"It is a very labor intensive lawsuit," said Shannon. "We have spent almost $700,000 to date. We are requesting authority to the total amount of $895,000. I will tell you that since this case will have to be tried, given the fact that the demand is in the tens of millions of dollars...at the end of the day the city will have paid in legal fees to (outside) legal counsel, well over, $1 million dollars.”
  
Shannon said he could not be more specific because the length of the trial is unknown at this point and will be determined, to some extent, by currently unresolved legal motions in the case.
  
"However, if there is a trial," said Shannon, "and I expect that there probably will be a trial on at least some of the issues, the city's legal expenses will be very substantial."
  
Mayor Bob Foster warned that the cost of defending the suit, let alone a ruling against the city, is a serious financial impact on the city.
  
"This money does not fall out of the sky," said Foster of the legal bills. "This money comes from the citizens of Long Beach. If in fact we are not successful in this suit for some reason, whatever the award (will be) comes out of the taxpayers of the City of Long Beach. There's no free lunch. There's no free money."
  
Foster, while saying he felt that the suit is over "trivia," said it would not be appropriate at this point to comment in great detail on the suit.
  
"But, I will say" added Foster, "that to pay people to do the functions (City Attorney Shannon) just described, people who work for the city, are funded by the taxpayers, and who the taxpayers I think have been fair and generous with...there's a disconnect here somewhere."
  
"It's not right, and it's going to cost this city, if in fact we are not successful, a lot of money," said Foster. "It already has cost this City a lot of money in legal fees, money that can be best spent in public safety elsewhere. I'll just leave it at that."
  
Following Foster's comments, Council member Gary DeLong asked the City Attorney if the $200,000 legal fee addition under consideration by the Council would likely be spent by the time the case got to trial and if perhaps another $500,000 to $1 million in legal fees might be needed.
  
Shannon agreed with DeLong's assessment of the possible costs.
  
"I don't want to make any pie in the sky predictions," Shannon said. "I am trying to be very realistic here as to what it is going to take to properly and aggressively defend the city's interests--but your order of magnitude is within reach."
  
DeLong followed up with a question to City Manager Pat West about where the money to pay these costs, and a possible judgment against the city, would come from.
  
"We have no insurance fund reserve," said West. "We have no reserve to pay a settlement or a judgment in the amount that the City Attorney is talking about so definitely it would have to come out of city departments. The Council has set an informal policy this year to try to keep costs isolated in the department where they were created. We don't have the ability of furloughing in the Police Department right now, so it would just simply leave us with the 'layoff tool.' Certainly we would not go to our patrol services, but would try to focus any cuts in PD on the support level services if we were to have such a judgment."
  
Council member Schipske asked Shannon if only Long Beach was being sued over these issues or if "donning and doffing" legal action had been taken against other cities.
  
"Police departments throughout the country are being sued with these general allegations," replied Shannon. "In the immediate area, the city of San Diego has been sued, the City of Oakland, the City of Mesa, Arizona... and the city of Los Angeles has also been sued."
  
While almost all of these cases are being appealed, the courts only found in favor of the cities in the San Diego case.
  
In the Mesa, Oakland, and Los Angeles cases, the courts ruled in favor of the police officers on the “donning and doffing” issue (though in one of several such Los Angeles cases the officers lost the case due to a technical issue unrelated to the "donning and doffing" issue). 
  
It is also worth noting that the Long Beach Police Officer’s Association, the union representing the officers, is not involved in the suit against the city, which has been brought by individual officers.

Comments

Click Here to Join the Discussion on this Story

13 Comments so far.

Display Name :
E-mail Address :
Comment :