Miami Beach Asks Justices to Move Quickly on Minimum Wage Case
The justices last month, in a 4-3 decision, agreed to take up the city's appeal of a ruling that blocked a minimum-wage ordinance from taking effect.
September 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM
4 minute read
In a case being watched by business groups and local governments, the city of Miami Beach is asking the Florida Supreme Court to act quickly in a battle about the legality of a local minimum wage.
The justices last month, in a 4-3 decision, agreed to take up the city's appeal of a ruling that blocked a minimum-wage ordinance from taking effect. The ordinance, approved in 2016, had been planned to set the minimum wage in the city at $10.31 an hour this year, with annual incremental increases to $13.31 an hour in January 2021.
The statewide minimum wage this year is $8.25 an hour.
Attorneys for the city filed a legal brief at the Supreme Court this week and asked the justices to rule by Jan. 1. Such a quick timetable would allow a higher minimum wage to take effect in January if the city wins the case.
“Obviously, all of the low wage workers in the city are suffering immediate, continuing, and irreparable harm every day that they await a decision by this court,” the city attorneys argued in the brief Tuesday. “That harm will increase exponentially on January 1, 2019, and continue for every paycheck thereafter, if they are not awarded the second incremental increase provided by the ordinance.”
Siding with opponents such as the Florida Retail Federation, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association, the Third District Court of Appeal in December ruled that state law blocks Miami Beach from moving forward with the minimum wage. The appeals court said a state “preemption” law prevents local governments from establishing minimum wages.
The case, in part, focuses on a 2004 constitutional amendment that created a higher minimum wage in Florida than the federal minimum wage. Miami Beach contended that the constitutional amendment also allowed it to set a different minimum wage.
But the appeals court said an earlier state law prevented local governments from setting minimum wages and that the constitutional amendment did not change that “preemption” law.
“Certainly, had the drafters of [the constitutional amendment] wanted to restrict the Legislature's ability to prohibit a municipality from adopting its own minimum wage ordinance, they could have employed clear and direct language to achieve that purpose,” a panel of the appeals court said. “For whatever reason, the drafters of the provision chose not to incorporate such language in the text of the amendment and we decline [the] city's invitation to do so by judicial fiat.”
But attorneys for the city disputed that interpretation of the 2004 constitutional amendment in the brief filed this week.
“The city's ordinance is … valid because the earlier enacted preemption statute, which prohibited local minimum wage ordinances, conflicts with the later enacted 2004 minimum wage amendment that explicitly states that it does not prohibit higher local minimum wage ordinances,” the brief said.
The business groups and Attorney General Pam Bondi's office argued that the Supreme Court should not take up the case. But the court issued an order Aug. 29 accepting the case. Justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince and Jorge Labarga supported the move, while Chief Justice Charles Canady and Justices Ricky Polston and Alan Lawson were opposed.
In the order, the court did not set a date for oral arguments.
Along with the business groups, local governments also are watching the case. The Florida League of Cities and the International Municipal Lawyers Association received approval Wednesday to file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Miami Beach.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBenworth Accused of Predatory Tactics in Foreclosure Dispute as Elderly Defendant's Health Deteriorates
4 minute read'Get Rid of the Men': Employer Accused of Discrimination
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250