Pa. high court OKs city’s sick leave rule
Rejects act for extra security guard training
The state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of a Pittsburgh ordinance requiring employers to provide paid sick leave, bringing to a close a yearslong legal fight between the city and several businesses within its boundaries.
The debate centered on whether the city overstepped its municipal power or was exercising its right to protect workers and the public in the name of economic justice and health.
The Paid Sick Days Act, passed in August 2015, requires employers to offer employees one hour of sick leave for every 35 hours worked. Businesses with 15 or more employees must offer up to 40 hours of sick leave per year; those with fewer than 15 must offer up to 24 hours. The bill also allows time off to care for a sick family member and outlines rules for notifying employers.
The court ruled that while the burden on businesses presented by the act is “not insignificant,” the ordinance “bears a direct nexus with public health” and falls within the city’s scope under the state’s Disease Prevention and Control Law.
“Consequently, the [ ordinance] is more like a ‘ health or safety ordinance’ that affects business than a statute with its principal focus upon regulating business for its own sake,” wrote Justice David N. Wecht, citing a 2009 state Supreme Court opinion in Building Owners & Managers Association of Pittsburgh v. City of Pittsburgh.
Mayor Bill Peduto and City Council members hailed the ruling.
“Guaranteeing paid sick leave is a huge win for those who live and work in Pittsburgh. As I’ve long said, people should not be forced
into making the tough decision between staying home sick and missing a day’s pay, or coming in to work and spreading infection,” Mr. Peduto said in a statement Wednesday. “I want to thank the Supreme Court for affirming Pittsburgh’s statutory powers to do what’s best for our people.”
Councilman Corey O’Connor, one of the bill’s original co- sponsors, said the ruling “is not a win for politicians. This is a win for workers fighting for economic justice.”
Council members Deb Gross and the Rev. Ricky Burgess and then- council member Natalia Rudiak also sponsored the measure.
The Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association, which represents roughly 350 local businesses, called the ruling “very disappointing,” maintaining that the law is a violation of Pittsburgh’s Home Rule Charter.
The association — joined by the local Storms Restaurant, Lawrenceville Brewing/ Church Brew Works, Rita’s Italian Ice, Dirt Doctor’s Cleaning Service and Modern Cafe — sued the city over the sick days act and won at the Commonwealth Court level.
“I know a lot of people like to believe we don’t care about our employees, but that’s not the case,” said Melissa Bova, the association’s vice president.
“I think it’s scary for our business that with the strike of a pen, the Supreme Court did what we believe to be a political decision, rewriting and throwing out precedent,” she said, referring to the city’s loss in the 2009 case when the court ruled the city exceeded its authority upon mandating that employers give a 180day transition period when changing contractors. The intent was to prevent wholesale job losses when a new contractor took over.
John Graf, owner of the North Side- based Priory Hospitality Group, called the public health argument a “fig leaf.”
“It’s result looking for a justification, and they found one,” he said.
Mr. Graf said he offers “generous” paid time off for his roughly 130 full- and parttime employees, “but we have the wherewithal … not everybody’s in that position. The municipal government comes along and says ‘ this one size fits all.’”
The court on Wednesday also handed a loss to the city on its 2015 Safe and Secure Buildings Act, which required more safety and security training for security guards and other personnel in buildings of at least 100,000 square feet, colleges and universities, and properties owned by the city.
Justice Wecht wrote that “the city fails to identify any statutory authority sufficient to sustain the [ Safe and Security Building Act].”
Amanda Schaub, executive director of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Pittsburgh, said she “wasn’t surprised” by the ruling and that her members are already committed to safety.
The law would have just “added an additional layer,” she said.
Both bills were championed by the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, which joined the city in court.
While Mr. Peduto said he was “disappointed” on the buildings act ruling, he is “confident SEIU 32BJ, the security officers union, will work diligently to ensure that officers are prepared to ensure the safety of those working in Downtown buildings.”
Sam Williamson, head of the 6,400- member local, said in a statement that the organization is “elated that 50,000 hardworking Pittsburghers will now have the time off they need.”