WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) – Read your own laws, D.C. Police Union is telling the District of Columbia as it fights a new measure passed as a response to anti-law enforcement sentiment around the country.
The D.C. Police Union is fighting the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Second Emergency Amendment Act, which was passed unanimously by the D.C. Council during protests related to the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis cops.
That law says disciplinary matters shall be “retained by management and not be negotiable” - a measure that will be applied to all future collective bargaining agreements.
This makes the D.C. police union the only union out of more than 40 in the district to be unable to negotiate with management regarding the discipline of its members, the lawsuit said.
“Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege that the Act treats the D.C. Police
Union and its members differently than similarly-situated citizens of the District, and that ‘[s]uch an omission is fatal to [Plaintiff’s] equal protection clause claim,’” lawyers for D.C. Police Union wrote on Sept. 11.
“However, the Act itself explicitly applies to ‘sworn law enforcement personnel,’ thereby drawing the express distinction between members of the Metropolitan Police Department (‘MPD’) and every other public employee of the District.
“The D.C. Police Union’s Complaint alleges the same, stating that other public employees and labor unions in the District are not subject to the disciplinary bargaining limitations imposed upon MPD officers through the Act.”
D.C. argued in a motion to dismiss filed a week earlier that its cops fail to establish any violation of their Constitutional rights.
“First, plaintiff alleges that the Act violates the Equal Protection Clause, but plaintiff cannot succeed on the claim because it fails to allege that the Act treats sworn officers differently than other similarly situated public employees and ignores the legitimate rationale for the passage of the Act,” attorneys at D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine’s office wrote.
“Second, plaintiff fails to establish a bill of attainder claim because plaintiff cannot show that the Act constitutes legislative punishment.
“Third, plaintiff’s Contract Clause claim cannot succeed because the Act applies to future CBAs—not to an existing contract—and, regardless, any impairment of an existing contract is reasonable and necessary to improve police accountability.
“Fourth, plaintiff fails to establish a violation of the Due Process Clause because the Act does not deprive plaintiff of a valid life, liberty, or property interest and—even if it did—the Act is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.”