The PSL turbulence in Texas continues. A Bexar County judge today temporarily enjoined implementation of San Antonio’s Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance. The Ordinance was to be effective on December 1, 2019.
The petitioners seeking the injunction were the State of Texas and a cadre of business interests. Judge Peter Sakai heard oral argument on the request for a temporary injunction two weeks ago and granted that request in a letter ruling today. The court ordered that a date certain for a trial on the merits be set as soon as possible.
San Antonio’s efforts to enact a PSL ordinance have been challenged in litigation since July. The initial San Antonio Earned Paid Sick Leave Ordinance was to be effective August 1, 2019. On July 15, a lawsuit was filed seeking to enjoin its implementation The lawsuit raised a myriad of constitutional claims including that it was preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act. The plaintiffs and defendants had agreed to postpone the ordinance’s implementation until December 1, 2019. In October, the City Council amended the ordinance and renamed in the Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance. Today’s ruling temporarily enjoins implementation of the amended ordinance
In addition to San Antonio, Austin and Dallas have also enacted PSL ordinances. The PSL ordinance in Austin was enjoined a year ago. The City of Austin has asked the Supreme Court of Texas to review that decision. There is also a legal challenge pending to the Dallas PSL ordinance.
The PSL turbulence in Texas garnered most of the PSL headlines in the third quarter. How that turbulence ends will determine the fate of PSL ordinances in Austin, Dallas and San Antonio. This quarterly summary includes:
In August, Bernalillo County Commissioners (NM) enacted an “any reason” leave law. The Employee Wellness Act applies to employers in the unincorporated limits of the County, which excludes the City of Albuquerque. The County ordinance has the typical PSL architecture less the list of approved uses. In October, 2019, the Commissioners amended the law to include annual caps on paid leave accrued based on the size of the employer and removes the 90 day wait period to begin accruing leave. The ordinance at the link above includes the amendments.
Paid Sick Leave Preemption Developments
Alabama: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals en banc will resolve the challenge to Alabama’s minimum wage and employment benefits preemption law. The Court heard oral argument on June 25, 2019. The Alabama Uniform Minimum Wage and Right-to-Work Act bars municipalities from requiring employers to provide employees wages or “employment benefits,” including leave, unless required by federal or state law. The plaintiffs brought various race-based challenges to the Act. In July 2018, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of all claims except the “equal protection” constitutional claim. Marnika Lewis v. State of Alabama et al. (11th Cir) (11th Cir. Case No.17-11009).
Paid Sick Leave Litigation
Challenges to state PSL laws
Washington: A federal district court has rejected claims by an association of airline carriers that the Washington State Paid Sick Leave Act (WPSL) as applied to flight crew was unconstitutional and preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). The plaintiff had claimed the WPSL violated the dormant Commerce Clause–the implicit restriction on a state or local government’s ability to unreasonably burden interstate commerce and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The plaintiff had also claimed the ADA preempts the WPSL law with regard to both flight crew and ground crew because they relate to a “price, route or service of an air carrier.” Air Transport Association of America, d/b/a Airlines For America v. The Washington Dep’t of Labor and Industries et al (W.D. WA. October 11, 2019).
Massachusetts : The same plaintiff-airline association in the Washington case also sued in Massachusetts, arguing that the Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law (MESTL) as applied to flight crew is unconstitutional and preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), Air Transport Association of America, d/b/a Airlines For America v. Maura Healey in her capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (D.MA, Case No. 1:18-cv-10651, filed 04/04/18).
Michigan: The Michigan Supreme Court will wade into the clash involving the constitutionality of the state’s Paid Medical Leave Act, at least to decide whether to consider the substance of that clash. In response to requests by both legislative chambers for an advisory opinion on the legality of the recently enacted state PSL law, the court heard oral argument on July 17, 2019. The first of three questions listed in the Court’s Order concern whether it should exercise its discretion and issue the requested advisory opinion.
Challenges to local PSL laws
Austin, TX: In November 2018, a Texas appellate court ruled that the Austin Earned Sick Time Ordinance is unconstitutional because it is preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act (TMWA). The City of Austin has asked the Texas Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. The Austin PSL ordinance was to be effective on October 1, 2018 but its implementation has been enjoined pending the outcome of the litigation. If the court decides to hear the case, its decision will likely affect the Dallas and San Antonio PSL ordinances as well. City of Austin, Texas et al v. Texas Ass’n of Business et al (TX SupCt No. 19-0025).
Dallas, TX: The Dallas City Council passed an Earned Paid Sick Time Ordinance in April. In July, the Texas Public Policy Foundation on behalf of two employers sued to enjoin its implementation and sought a preliminary injunction. The case is pending. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP et al v. City of Dallas et al (E.D.TX, Case 4:19-cv-00570).Dallas has announced that it “will not enforce the Ordinance except for violations of the anti-retaliation provision, until April 1, 2020.”
San Antonio, TX: The original San Antonio Earned Paid Sick Leave Ordinance was to be effective August 1. On July 15, a cadre of business interests had filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin implementation of the ordinance. The lawsuit raised a myriad of constitutional claims as well as the TMWA preemption claim. The plaintiffs and defendants had agreed to postpone the ordinance’s implementation date until December 1, 2019. On October 3, 2019, the San Antonio City Council amended its PSL law, now renamed the San Antonio Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance, which is scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2019. The lawsuit had been stayed but remains pending. Associated Builders & Contractors of South Texas et al v. City of San Antonio et al (Bexar County Court, 408th Judicial District; Cause No. 019CI13921).
New York City: American Airlines sued the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs alleging arguments similar to those raised in the Washington and Massachusetts cases described above. In addition, American alleges that the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act as applied to its flight crews “violates the prohibition against extraterritorial application of local laws under New York” and is void for vagueness. American also alleges it complies with the PSL law for some of its ground crew because their collective bargaining agreement expressly waives the PSL law and provide a comparable benefits in the form of paid days off. American Airlines, Inc. v. NYC Dep’t of Consumer Affairs et al (E.D.N.Y. Case 1:19-cv-04424l, filed 08/01/19). The suit also seeks to enjoin NYC’s enforcement action filed July 24, 2019 against American at the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings.
Pittsburgh: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in July the City of Pittsburgh had authority to enact the Paid Sick Days Act. This opinion reverses a lower court opinion and frees the PSDA from the legal limbo it has been in since its enactment in 2015. The PSDA hews to the typical architecture of a PSL law. Employees of employers with at least fifteen employees accrue one hour of paid time for every 35 hours worked, to a maximum of 40 hours annually. Employees of smaller employers accrue up to 24 hours of unpaid sick time during the first year of the PSDA’s implementation and up to 24 hours of paid time subsequently.
Other Paid Sick Leave Developments To Watch
With primary campaign season in full swing, many of the candidates support some form of paid leave. Ballotopedia compiled the candidates’ statements about paid leave here.
Some states with PSL laws have enacted paid family and medical leave laws which, in effect, are a significant expansion of their PSL laws. Eight states now offer paid family and medical leave: CA, CT, MA, NY, NJ, OR, RI, WA. .
More than a year ago, I posted about the paid sick leave turbulence in the Lone Star State. The turbulence lives on.
Austin, San Antonio and Dallas have enacted PSL ordinances. Cadres of business interests have sued to enjoin each.
It started in Austin. Last November, a Texas appellate court ruled that the Austin Earned Sick Time Ordinance is unconstitutional because it is preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act (TMWA). The City of Austin has asked the Texas Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. The Austin PSL ordinance was to be effective on October 1, 2018 but its implementation has been enjoined pending the outcome of the litigation.
The San Antonio Earned Paid Sick Leave Ordinance was to be effective today, August 1. On July 15, a lawsuit was filed seeking to enjoin implementation of the ordinance. The lawsuit raised a myriad of constitutional claims as well as the TMWA preemption claim. The plaintiffs and defendants have agreed to postpone the ordinance’s implementation date until December 1, 2019.
The Dallas Earned Paid Sick Time Ordinance is also scheduled to be effective today. Two days ago, a cadre of business interests sued to enjoin its implementation.
Meanwhile, the Texas Legislature failed to enact a PSL preemption law this past session, which many had thought would make litigation unnecessary. As of now, the viability of the three PSL ordinances lie with the judiciary.
More PSL turbulence to come in Texas before it settles down, I suspect.
The vast and complex patchwork of PSL laws expanded in the second quarter of 2019. The most notable development was the addition of two laws with PSL architecture but allowing paid leave to be used for any reason, not merely for sick leave.
None, though some introduced previously remain pending.
Paid Sick Leave Preemption Developments
Alabama: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to hear the challenge to Alabama’s minimum wage and employment benefits preemption law en banc, meaning that all of the Court’s judges will hear the case. The Court held oral argument on June 25, 2019. The Alabama Uniform Minimum Wage and Right-to-Work Act bars municipalities from requiring employers to provide employees wages or “employment benefits,” including leave, unless required by federal or state law. The plaintiffs brought various race-based challenges to the Act, all of which were rejected by a federal district court last year. Last July, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims except the “equal protection” constitutional claim. Marnika Lewis v. State of Alabama et al. (11th Cir) (Case No.17-11009)(11th Cir. July 25, 2018).
Paid Sick Leave Litigation
Challenges to state PSL laws
Massachusetts and Washington: The Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law (MESTL) and Washington State Paid Sick Leave Act (WPSL) as applied to flight crew are unconstitutional and preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), according to complaints filed by the Air Transport Association of America, an association of airline carriers. The plaintiff claims these state laws violate the dormant Commerce Clause–the implicit restriction on a state or local government’s ability to unreasonably burden interstate commerce–and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The plaintiff also alleges that the ADA preempts the state PSL laws with regard to both flight crew and ground crew because they relate to a “price, route or service of an air carrier.” In the Massachusetts case, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on November 30, 2018, which remains pending. Air Transport Association of America, d/b/a Airlines For America v. Maura Healey in her capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (D.MA)(complaint filed 04/04/18); Air Transport Association of America, d/b/a Airlines For America v. The Washington Dep’t of Labor and Industries et al (W.D. WA)(complaint filed 02/06/18). A handful of airlines have raised similar challenges to the NYC PSL law as well.
Michigan: The Michigan Supreme Court will wade into the clash involving the constitutionality of the state’s Paid Medical Leave Act, at least to decide whether to consider the substance of that clash. In response to requests by both legislative chambers for an advisory opinion on the legality of the recently enacted state PSL law, the court scheduled a hearing on July 17, 2019. The first of three questions listed in the Court’s Order is whether it should exercise its discretion and issue the requested advisory opinion.
Challenges to local PSL laws
Pittsburgh, PA: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania will decide whether Pittsburgh had authority to enact the Sick Days Act which it adopted three years ago. Last year, an appellate court affirmed a lower court decision that the City did not have the authority to enact it and invalidated the law. Oral argument in the Supreme Court occurred on October 23, 2018. Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Ass’n v. City of Pittsburgh and Service Employees Int’l Union, Local 32 BJ. (Pa. Supreme Court, 57 WAP 2017).
Austin, TX: The Austin Earned Sick Time Ordinance is unconstitutional because it is preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act (TMWA), the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, ruled in November. The City of Austin has asked the Texas Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. The Austin PSL ordinance was to be effective on October 1, 2018 but its implementation has been enjoined pending the outcome of the litigation. Texas Ass’n of Business et al v City of Austin, Texas et al (TX Ct of Appeals, Third District, Case. No. 03-18-00445-CV, November 16, 2018).
Other Paid Sick Leave Developments To Watch
Bernalillo County, NM: The Board of Commissioners tabled a proposed PSL ordinance to consider transforming it to an “any reason” ordinance by deleting the limits on the use of accrued time.
Minneapolis: As a result of a recent court of appeals decision, beginning July 3, 2019, Minneapolis began enforcing its Sick and Safe Time Ordinance against businesses not physically located in the city but who have employees who work at least eight (80) hours in a year within the geographic boundaries of the city.
Albany County, NY and Portland, ME legislatures defeated PSL bills this past quarter.
The Austin Earned Sick Time Ordinance is unconstitutional because it is preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act (TMWA), the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, ruled on Friday. A state district court judge earlier this year said that the challenge to the Austin PSL ordinance had “the aroma of a good political blood fight,”
The court’s ruling focused largely on whether the sick days required by the Austin ordinance were a “wage,” a term not defined in the TMWA. Relying on dictionary definitions to discern the “plain meaning” of that word, the court noted that the Austin Ordinance establishes a wage because it “increases the pay of those employees who use paid sick leave.”
The court explained that employees who use sick leave are paid a higher rate of pay for hours actually worked. For example, the court noted, an hourly employee earning $10 per hour who works 15 hours per week for 50 weeks (750 hours total) will have earned $7500 for that work. If that same employee uses the 25 hours of sick leave earned during that period under the Austin ordinance, the employee’s hourly wage for hours worked would increase to $10.33.
The court concluded that since “the Ordinance increases the pay of those employees who use paid sick leave,” it is a “wage” under the TMWA and, for that reason, is preempted by that state law.
The court’s decision comes just a few days after a Texas legislator pre-filed a bill to preempt local paid sick leave laws. My post on that pre-filing is here.
San Antonio is the only other Texas city to have enacted a PSL law. It is scheduled to be effective on August 1, 2019.
With a GOP trifecta–the governor is a Republican and both chambers of the legislature have a Republican majority–one would not expect much PSL activity in Texas. But PSL turbulence continues in the Lone Star State and was on full display last week.
Last Friday, a Texas Court of Appeals enjoined the implementation of the Austin Earned Sick Time Ordinance pending the outcome of the legal challenge to it. The Austin Ordinance had been scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2018. In reversing last month’s district court decision, the Court said that “enjoining the ordinance is necessary to preserve the parties’rights until disposition of the appeal.”
In San Antonio, PSL proponents had collected enough signatures to have voters decide in November whether to adopt a PSL ordinance. On Thursday, the San Antonio City Council passed the PSL proposal, nullifying the ballot initiative. The San Antonio PSL ordinance is scheduled to go into effect on August 1, 2019.
Here is where the GOP trifecta is a factor. The Texas Legislature convenes in January 2019. It is widely anticipated that the legislature will consider a bill to prohibit political subdivisions from enacting a leave law. If enacted, such a law would likely negate both the Austin and San Antonio ordinances.
I suspect that San Antonio business interests are huddling this week to decide whether to file a challenge similar to that pending in Austin or sit on the sidelines and hope that the Austin ordinance (and, in turn, the San Antonio ordinance) will be negated by either the court or the legislature.
There’s more PSL turbulence in Texas, and more to come.
The challenge to Alabama’s preemption law lives to fight another day, according to an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision last week. In 2016, the plaintiffs made various race-based challenges to the Alabama Uniform Minimum Wage and Right-to-Work Act. That Act bars political subdivisions from requiring employers to provide employees with wages or “employment benefits,” including paid and unpaid leave, not required by federal or state law. The Alabama legislature enacted the law the day after the City of Birmingham’s passed an ordinance increasing the minimum wage within the city. The state law voided that ordinance. The plaintiffs argued that the state law was unconstitutional and violated the Voting Rights Act. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit.
Last year, a federal district court rejected all of the plaintiffs’ challenges and dismissed the case. The Eleventh Circuit last week affirmed the dismissal of all but one of the challenges. Concerning the plaintiffs “equal protection” constitutional claim, the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged both that the MWA “burdens black citizens more than white ones” and that it was enacted with a discriminatory purpose. The court remanded the equal protection claim to the district court for further proceedings.
The vast and complex patchwork of PSL laws added in 2Q a New Jersey law–the 10th PSL state–and an ordinance in Duluth, Minnesota. This summary includes:
New York City (amendment): New York City amended its Earned Sick Time Act to allow accrued time to be used for reasons related to domestic violence. The renamed New York City Safe and Sick Time Law was effective May 7, 2018.
None, though some introduced previously are still pending.
Paid Sick Leave Preemption Developments
Alabama: Marnika Lewis v. State of Alabama et al. (11th Cir) (Case No.17-11009). Last year, a federal district court rejected challenges to the Alabama Uniform Minimum Wage and Right-to-Work Act, which bars political subdivisions from requiring employers to provide employees with wages or “employment benefits, ”including paid and unpaid leave, not required by federal or state law. The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which heard oral argument on April 13, 2018.
New Jersey: The New Jersey Earned Sick Leave Law preempts the existing 13 municipal PSL laws within the state as well as any future local earned sick leave laws. The state law is effective October 29, 2018, at which time the 13 municipal laws will meet their demise, which will reduce by about a third the number of PSL laws nationwide.
Proposed federal bill: The Workflex in the 21st Century Act, introduced in the House of Representatives in November, would expand ERISA preemption to override the patchwork of paid sick leave laws for an employer which voluntarily adopts a written qualified flexible workplace arrangement” (QWFA) that provides the required minimum amount of “compensable leave” and offers employees at least one of the listed “workflex options.” The bill has been referred to U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which held a hearing on the bill on July 24, 2018.
Paid Sick Leave Litigation
Challenges to state PSL laws
Massachusetts: A railroad had argued that the Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law (MESTL) was preempted by the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), the Railway Labor Act and ERISA with regard to interstate rail carriers. The First Circuit held last June that the section of the MESTL dealing with benefits for an employee’s own medical condition was preempted by the RUIA. The court remanded the case to have the district court decide whether any other sections are preempted by the RUIA or the Railway Labor Act or ERISA and whether any sections of the MESTL survive as applied to interstate rail carriers. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Healey (1st Cir. 2017).
Massachusetts and Washington: The Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law (MESTL) and Washington State Paid Sick Leave Act (WPSL) as applied to flight crew are unconstitutional and preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), according to complaints filed by the Air Transport Association of America, an association of airline carriers. The plaintiff claims these state laws violate the dormant Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The dormant Commerce Clause is an implicit restriction on the ability of state and local governments to impose an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The plaintiff also alleges that the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts the state PSL laws with regard to both flight crew and ground crew because they relate to a “price, route or service of an air carrier.” Air Transport Association of America, d/b/a Airlines For America v. Maura Healey in her capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (D.MA); Air Transport Association of America, d/b/a Airlines For America v. The Washington Dep’t of Labor and Industries et al (W.D. WA).
Challenges to local PSL laws
Pittsburgh, PA: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania will decide whether the City of Pittsburgh had authority to enact the Sick Days Act, which it enacted in August 2015. Last year, an appellate court affirmed a lower court’s decision that the city did not have the authority to enact it and invalidated the Act. The lone dissenting judge said that Pittsburgh had the right to protect the health and safety of its residents and that the Sick Days Act was an exercise of that right. The appeal will focus on an interpretation of the Home Rule Charter Law, which limits the City’s authority to regulate business “except as expressly provided by statutes….” The briefing by the parties was completed on April 4, 2018. Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Ass’n v. City of Pittsburgh and Service Employees Int’l Union, Local 32 BJ. (Pa. Supreme Court, 227 WAL 2017).
Austin, TX: A cadre of business interests had sued to enjoin implementation of the Austin Earned Sick Time Ordinance, which is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2018. Noting that the case “has the aroma of a good political blood fight,” a state district court judge denied the injunction request. However, the plaintiffs might appeal the district judge’s decision or proceed to litigate the substance of their claims. The plaintiffs claim that the Austin Ordinance is preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Law which requires employers to follow the federal minimum wage law, which does not require employers to pay for time not worked as the Austin PSL ordinance does. They also claim the ordinance violates the due process clause of the state constitution because the “articulated governmental interests are factually unsupported,” “…its mandates “have no rational connection to furthering those interests” and even if they did, the mandates are “so burdensome as to be oppressive in light of the alleged governmental interest.” They also argue that the Ordinance violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause because it allows employers and unions to modify the yearly cap in their labor contracts but does not afford non-union employers the right to modify the cap. Texas Ass’n of Business et al v City of Austin, Texas et al (D.Ct. Travis County 2018).
Other Paid Sick Leave Developments To Watch
Albany County, NY: The County’s Paid Sick Leave Act was introduced in March and referred to the Legislature’s Law Committee. The Albany bill has the typical PSL architecture: employees accrue one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked, to an annual maximum of 72 hours for employers with at least ten employees, lesser and phased-in amounts for smaller employers except that employers with five or fewer employees would provide unpaid leave. The Law Committee is scheduled to consider the bill at a July 23, 2018 meeting.
Cook County Earned Sick Leave Ordinance: Two Cook County municipalities that had previously voted to opt out of the County’s PSL ordinance revisited their decisions. In April, Western Springs opted in to the County PSL ordinance; Wilmette Village again voted to opt out of the County PSL ordinance.
Dallas and San Antonio, TX: PSL proponents in both cities have collected signatures to put the initiative on the November 2018 ballot. In Dallas, PSL proponents submitted what they believed were a sufficient number of signatures to support the ballot initiative but city officials said recently that the number of valid signatures is 871 fewer than required. In San Antonio, PSL supporters also submitted what they believed were sufficient valid signatures to support the PSL ballot initiative. The next step is for the City Council to decide whether to officially certify the issue for a ballot initiative.
Michigan: PSL proponents in Michigan have submitted what they believe are sufficient signatures to have voters decide in November whether to adopt a PSL law. Two business groups have filed challenges with the Board of State Canvassers concerning both the substance of the proposed ballot initiative and the validity of some signatures.
Westchester County, NY: The Westchester County Board of Legislators is considering a PSL bill that is substantially similar to the bill introduced but not passed last year. The proposed Earned Sick Leave Law has the typical PSL architecture: employees will accrue one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked and may earn and use up to 40 hours in a year for itemized reasons. For employees of employers with at least 5 employees, the earned time is paid. A public hearing has been set for September 17, 2018 at 7:30 p.m.
On Labor Day 2015, then-President Obama signed Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors, which requires certain government contractors to provide certain employees with paid sick leave. The EO applies to certain government contractors who enter into certain government contracts after January 1, 2017. While there has been speculation about the plight of EO 13706 in the Trump administration, no steps have yet been taken to negate it and, unless and until it is voided, the EO is in effect.
Noting that the case “has the aroma of a good political blood fight,” a state district court judge yesterday denied the request of a cadre of business interests to enjoin implementation of the Austin Earned Sick Time Ordinance, scheduled to go into effect on October 1, according to a news report. The judge also ruled that the Texas Attorney General’s office could remain in the case as a plaintiff-intervenor but tossed the Workers Defense Project as a defendant-intervenor from the case, according to that report.
The denial of the requested temporary injunction does not end the challenge to the Austin ordinance. The plaintiffs might appeal the district judge’s decision or proceed to litigate the substance of their claims.
PSL opponents are also anticipating a legislative fix. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has been vocal in his displeasure with local PSL laws (see here), raising the possibility that the legislature will enact a law preempting the Austin ordinance’ in its 2019 session. Texas preemption laws have recently banned local ride-share regulations, fracking bans and sanctuary cities.
There’s PSL-turbulence in the Lone Star State and plenty more to come. PSL proponents in Dallas and San Antonio hope to let voters decide in November whether to adopt a PSL ordinance.
Last month, a cadre of business interests filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin implementation of the ordinance, which is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2018. They claim that the ordinance is preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act (TMWA) and violates various provisions of the state constitution. The TMWA requires Texas employers to pay employees a minimum wage established by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The State of Texas has already intervened in the case, arguing only that the Ordinance was preempted by the TMWA. My prior posts on this PSL litigation are here and here.
Paid Sick Leave @ Work 