Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Court Backs Living Wage, Santa Fe Foes Dealt A Setback
By Martin Salazar and
Mark Oswald
Of the Journal
Opponents of Santa Fe's controversial living wage
law suffered a blow on Tuesday when the state Court of Appeals rejected their
challenge to the city ordinance requiring larger employers in the City
Different to pay workers $8.50 an hour.
"The city has the power to set a minimum wage for
private employers that is higher than that mandated by the state," the
appeals court said in its opinion. "The ordinance does not conflict with
state law and is not otherwise unconstitutional."
The decision was heralded as a big victory by proponents of
the so-called living wage.
"We are absolutely thrilled about it," said Carol
Oppenheimer, a member of the Living Wage Network. "It is a tremendous win
for
It was unclear Tuesday whether opponents of the ordinance
will ask the state Supreme Court to review the case or mount a new challenge to
the law in federal court.
Santa Fe attorney T. Glenn Ellington— who represented the
New Mexicans for Free Enterprise, the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce and several
businesses in challenging the wage law— said he had yet to discuss the issue
with his clients.
"We'll have to read the decision and have time to think
about it," Ellington said.
The Santa Fe City Council adopted the wage ordinance in
February 2003. The law, requiring
With
Opponents argued that the law has driven businesses to close
and that more will follow as the law phases in higher local minimum wage rates
in the future. Barring action from the City Council, the living wage will go up
to $9.50-an-hour in January and would go to $10.50 an hour in 2008.
The appeals court heard oral arguments in the case in late
June. Among the plaintiffs' arguments were that the city overstepped its
authority by enacting the ordinance, that the state minimum wage law preempts
local policy-making in this area, that the ordinance amounted to taking of
private property and that the ordinance's exemption for small businesses
violates constitutional equal protection guarantees.
The 42-page opinion upholding an earlier district court
decision supporting the living wage law flatly rejects each of the legal
challenges mounted by the plaintiffs, systematically explaining why they don't
hold up. The opinion was authored by Judge Cynthia A. Fry and joined by Chief
Judge Michael D. Bustamante and Judge Lynn Pickard.
"We're disappointed," said Ellington. "Of
course we've always contended that it's really a statewide issue ... and that
the state should make this kind of decision (on minimum wages)."
Ellington noted that Gov. Bill Richardson and House Speaker
Ben Lujan, D-Santa Fe, have suggested that the Legislature consider raising the
state minimum wage— now $5.15 an hour— at next year's legislative session.
He said "there will be a lot of issues above and beyond
the dollar amount," including whether
Most of
He said some plaintiffs may want to see if the City Council
approves a proposal to delay the scheduled increase in the living wage rate to
$9.50 in January before deciding how to proceed. The council will take up the
proposal at a Dec. 14 meeting.
City Councilor David Pfeffer, who
opposed the living wage law, said the appeals court ruling makes the council's
consideration of whether to postpone the increase to $9.50 "all the more
important."
"Good intentions don't necessarily translate into good
law," Pfeffer said.
Restaurant operator Robbie Day, who testified against the
ordinance, said the plaintiffs and "a large part of the business community
don't believe this (the wage law) is the progressive way to deal with the cost
of living."
He said doubling the minimum wage is "a pretty
significant surcharge" for business owners providing opportunity for
entry-level workers to learn job and language skills.
Day said the legal fight may not be over. He said he expects
a new challenge to the living wage ordinance to be filed in federal court. A
previous federal court challenge filed by Coca-Cola was dropped.
Proponents of the living wage praised the decision.
City Councilor David Coss said he
was "very pleased that the Court of Appeals agreed with District Judge
Daniel Sanchez, who ruled for the ordinance last year, and the city of
"I think we have a very good ordinance, and it's
working well for
Coss, who has announced he will
run for mayor next year, said he wasn't surprised that the ordinance was
upheld. He noted that there are other living wage laws around the country—
although
"We just have the best one right now," he said.
Journal staff writer Emily Crawford contributed to this
report.