On July 8, 2025, the Los Angeles City Attorneys Association (LACAA) achieved a significant legal triumph in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in the case of Los Angeles City Attorneys Association, et al. vs. City of Los Angeles, et al. (Case No. 24STCP03479). The court granted LACAA’s petition to compel arbitration, affirming the right of our members to utilize the grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to address workplace disputes, including allegations of discrimination. This ruling, obtained by Steven Welch of Mastagni Holstedt, APC, affirms LACAA’s commitment to protecting the rights of Deputy City Attorneys and ensuring fair treatment in the workplace.
The Case: Jacquelyn Lawson’s Grievance
The case centered on LACAA member Jacquelyn Lawson, a Deputy
City Attorney over 40 years old, who initiated a grievance under Article 21 of
MOU #29, alleging age-based discrimination in violation of Article 3, the MOU’s
non-discrimination provision. Lawson claimed that on April 30, 2024, her
supervisor inquired about her retirement plans, a comment she viewed as part of
a pattern of age bias that led to her being passed over for deserved
promotions. When the grievance was not resolved through the initial steps of
the MOU’s four-step process, LACAA and Lawson petitioned to compel binding
arbitration, as provided for in Article 21. The City of Los Angeles and the Los
Angeles City Attorney’s Office (collectively, “the City”) opposed the petition,
seeking to severely limit the scope of grievances that LACAA members could
pursue under MOU #29.
The City’s Opposition: A Threat to Grievance Rights
The City’s opposition was a broad attempt to curtail the
grievance and arbitration rights guaranteed to LACAA members. They argued that
only a very limited set of issues, such as disputes over sick pay or holiday
pay, are subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures under Article 21,
asserting that Lawson’s discrimination-based grievance fell outside this scope.
Additionally, the City contended that the grievance was both substantively and
procedurally non-arbitrable, claiming that Article 3’s non-discrimination
policy does not create an arbitrable right and that the grievance was untimely,
particularly regarding incidents predating the MOU’s effective date of January
1, 2024. The City further argued that discrimination allegations should be
handled through their “MyVoiceLA” procedure, not the MOU’s grievance process.
They also claimed that arbitrating Lawson’s grievance would infringe on their
discretionary authority to make workplace decisions, violating public policy
and potentially leading to “absurd results” where any workplace comment could
trigger arbitration. Finally, the City downplayed the April 30, 2024, incident,
suggesting that a single remark about retirement could not justify an
arbitrable grievance.
The Court’s Ruling: A Resounding Win for LACAA
Presided over by Judge Michael Small, the Superior Court
rejected the City’s arguments and granted LACAA’s petition. The court held that
Article 3’s non-discrimination policies can form the basis of a grievance under
Article 21, as the provision explicitly prohibits discrimination based on
protected characteristics, including age. Lawson’s allegations of age bias
clearly fall within this framework. The court rejected the City’s attempt to
limit grievances to minor administrative issues. The court also found no basis
in the MOU for the City’s claim that discrimination grievances must be
channeled through MyVoiceLA, ensuring that LACAA members can pursue such claims
through arbitration. Additionally, the court clarified that Lawson’s grievance
concerns the broader implications of alleged age discrimination, not just a
single remark, rebuffing the City’s attempt to trivialize the issue. The court
dismissed the City’s public policy argument as overly broad, noting that it
would effectively render all grievances non-arbitrable, and declined to address
procedural objections about timeliness, leaving such disputes for arbitration.
The case was stayed pending binding arbitration, with a status conference
scheduled for July 9, 2026.
Long-term Implication of this Victory
This ruling is a landmark win for LACAA and its members,
preserving a critical mechanism for Deputy City Attorneys to address workplace
injustices, including discrimination. Over the last several years, the City had
engaged in a pattern of contesting the arbitrability or various grievances
involving a variety of issues, including appeals of discipline. The City’s
attempt to confine arbitrable grievances to narrow issues like pay or benefits
was a direct threat to the protections LACAA has fought to secure. Had the City
prevailed, it would have undermined the MOU’s grievance process, leaving
members with limited recourse for serious workplace issues.
Through the dedicated efforts of LACAA
and Mastagni Holstedt, APC, this ruling prevents the City of Los Angels from unilaterally
limiting the scope of LACAA’s collective bargaining agreement. It affirms that
Article 3’s non-discrimination protections are enforceable rights, not mere
platitudes, and that allegations of discrimination will be addressed through
the fair, impartial process outlined in the MOU.
