California workers sue Newsom over return-to-office mandate

The California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE) has issued a forceful warning to approximately 100 state departments and agencies, according to New York Post, demanding environmental impact reviews before implementing the governor’s executive order.

In what the union describes as an exhaustion letter, CASE argues that any agency adopting Newsom’s return-to-office directive without first examining its environmental consequences is violating the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA.

The union characterizes the mandate as a discretionary project under CEQA, which obligates state and local agencies to review and disclose the environmental impacts of significant actions before proceeding.

CASE, which represents nearly 5,000 state-employed attorneys, judges and hearing officers, warned that the policy could generate substantial indirect environmental harm, including increased commuting and pollution.

The letter specifically addresses the requirement for employees to return to the office four days per week, describing it as a discretionary decision with numerous environmental impacts requiring analysis, disclosure and mitigation.

Matthew Gauger, CASE’s vice president, told the outlet they anticipate the letters will be highly effective.

Putting 90,000 people on the road has an environmental impact, Gauger stated, emphasizing that proper environmental impact reporting should precede such a decision.

Legal Threat and Carbon Data

The union made explicit its willingness to pursue legal action if state agencies refuse to conduct CEQA reviews before implementing the return-to-office policy, reserving the right to seek a writ of mandate in California Superior Court.

Supporting their position with data from a 2025 state auditor report, CASE noted that teleworking saved nearly 50 million commute miles and avoided over 18,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide in December 2023 alone.

The union demands not only environmental reviews examining impacts on human health and climate, but also identification of feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Among the alternatives CASE proposes: allowing personnel to continue teleworking to avoid thousands of metric tons of emissions, since remote work has functioned successfully for six years since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Alternative Solutions and State Response

Additional options presented by the union include providing public transit passes at reduced or no cost, installing electric car charging infrastructure, establishing electric van pools, or offering financial incentives for electric vehicle purchases.

The California Department of Human Resources sent a statement confirming that Newsom’s order requiring state employees to return to the office four days per week remains in effect starting July 1, 2026, aligned with agreements made last year to delay implementation by one year.

Departments have been preparing for employees’ return in alignment with this directive, including assessing and adjusting workspace requirements for returning personnel.

Union Opposition Mounting

This represents the second wave of union resistance Newsom has faced over his return-to-office executive order. Last year, the governor encountered significant pushback from unions over Executive Order N-22-25.

SEIU Local 1000, representing nearly 100,000 state workers, and CAPS UAW, representing 6,000 scientific workers, have both criticized the governor over the mandate.

Newsom initially issued an order in 2024 requiring two days of in-person work, a policy that was subsequently expanded to four days per week.

With information from New York Post