> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Ordinance facing challenge?
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/ordinance-facing-challenge/
- Published: 2008-03-14T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-24T18:52:47.000Z
- Author: Melody Hanatani
- Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*City’s worker law faces possible fight*

CITYWIDE A state grocers association that just won a legal battle challenging a Los Angeles law protecting grocery workers after a change in store ownership could target Santa Monica’s ordinance next.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge ruled on March 4 that the L.A. law is unconstitutional because it conflicts with statewide food safety and handling laws and discriminates against grocery stores based on their size and whether they have collective bargaining units, violating equal protection guarantees of the state and federal constitutions.

Santa Monica city officials passed a similar grocery worker retention law in 2006, mandating that grocers over 15,000 square feet in size retain their employees for up to 90 days after a change in ownership.

Attorneys with the California Grocers Association (CGA), which represents more than 500 retailers operating more than 6,000 stores in California and Nevada, said they could challenge the legality of Santa Monica’s ordinance.

“They’re considering their options right now,” Nathan Spatz, a CGA attorney from the firm of Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw and Pittman LLP, said last week. “The ordinances are practically identical.”

How the Los Angeles ruling would affect Santa Monica remains to be seen. City Attorney Marsha Moutrie, who said in 2006 that the Santa Monica ordinance would be upheld if challenged in court, did not return several requests for comment.

Councilmember Kevin McKeown, who sponsored the law, said last week that when the ordinance was introduced, there were plans to convert a Santa Monica grocery store into another brand with new employees. That transfer in ownership never occurred.

“The L.A. court ruling doesn’t directly apply to Santa Monica’s ordinance, though we’ll watch what happens on appeal,” McKeown said. “Santa Monica’s law protects community health against sudden shifts to new, untrained food handlers at supermarkets, so on behalf of everyone who shops here we’d hate to lose that protection.”

McKeown added that though the ordinance focused on the health aspects of ownership changes, it was based on the same store size thresholds with which the judge had issues in the Los Angeles ordinance. As a result, Santa Monica city officials might have to revisit that element of the ordinance, McKeown said.

If Los Angeles city officials do appeal the judge’s ruling, those who originally supported the ordinance say they believe the city will prevail.

Roxana Tynan, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, which helped in the formulation of the L.A. ordinance, said the worker protection ordinance was similar to ones that have been upheld statewide.

“What possible damage is there because you keep a worker to do the same job as they’ve been doing with the same customer base that knows the worker already,” Tynan said.“You don’t have to keep them forever — if you like them, then keep them permanently, if you don’t then, don’t.”

“It buys the workers a few months to figure out what they’re next move will be and prove they can do the same job (as the new employees),” she added.

Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, who represents West Los Angeles, said he was disappointed with the judge’s ruling, and believes the city will be heard differently at the next level.

“The workers matter and this 90-day period allows workers to have a deep breath....(so their) future can be worked on,” Rosendahl said.

Both ordinances have been supported by the unions. Barbara Maynard, the spokeswoman for UFCW Local 1442, which covers Santa Monica, said it is fairly common for large companies to change hands, putting those employees at the risk of being fired.

“This is multi-billion dollar corporations that change hands all the time,” Maynard said. “We were very supportive of this ordinance because we felt it did give a level of protection to workers in uncertain times.”

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 14, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/031408.pdf?ref=smdp.com)