![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/SAC_0019_NewsomRTO_HA_260604.JPG\" "\\"A")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
A billboard opposing Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s return-to-office order, visible to the eastbound commuters along the Capital City Freeway, is displayed in West Sacramento on Thursday, June 4, 2026. The billboard is the latest effort by state workers against the order.<\/p>\n
HECTOR AMEZCUA<\/p>\n
hamezcua@sacbee.com<\/p>\n
An Alameda Superior Court judge on Monday denied a state worker union\u2019s request to block Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s return-to-office order.<\/p>\n
The union representing state attorneys filed a lawsuit<\/a> earlier this month alleging state agencies ran afoul of the California Environmental Quality Act for not completing environmental impact reports before calling state workers back to offices four days a week.<\/p>\n The union, the California Attorneys Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment, argued that Newsom\u2019s return-to-office order would harm the state\u2019s environment<\/a> by forcing workers to commute more frequently, and emit more carbon emissions into the atmosphere.<\/p>\n In an order denying<\/a> the union\u2019s request for an injunction, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Rebekah Evenson found that state agencies\u2019 telework policies are not subject to the state\u2019s landmark environmental law, known as CEQA.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile the Court acknowledges that the return-to-office policies will likely inconvenience some employees, the Executive Order grants agencies and departments flexibility to address and ameliorate those impacts, so the extent of any inconvenience is uncertain. In any event, because this is a CEQA petition, the pertinent harms are not inconvenience to state employees, but the environmental impacts of the challenged \u2018policies,\u2019\u201d Evenson wrote.<\/p>\n Based on her preliminary review of the case, the judge noted that not all departments are requiring state employees to return to offices four days a week and not all workers will commute using gas-powered vehicles, so the environmental impact is likely to be less than what the union estimated as part of its initial complaint.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re disappointed with today\u2019s decision,\u201d CASE\u2019s president Talene Ghazarian said in a Monday statement. \u201cWe disagree with the Court about the timing of our suit and the harm the State will cause.\u201d<\/p>\n Ghazarian said that the 90,000 state workers who are subject to the return-to-office order will have an impact on the state\u2019s environment, but that the Newsom administration has not begun the process of analyzing those impacts.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re hopeful Governor Newsom will look at the data because it is clear: flexible work is better for the environment, better for taxpayers, and better for working families,\u201d Ghazarian said.<\/p>\n The governor\u2019s return-to-office order, which goes into effect Wednesday, has faced consistent and vocal pushback from state workers and their unions in recent months.<\/p>\n In addition to CASE\u2019s lawsuit, the largest representative of state employees, SEIU Local 1000, has filed an unfair labor charge against the state with California\u2019s labor board over the return-to-office policy change.<\/p>\n Related Stories from Sacramento Bee<\/p>\n
![\"Profile](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/SAC_257700_HA_240722_WMelhado.JPG\")