Los Angeles City Council members Hugo Soto-Martnez and Nithya Raman sat cross-legged in the middle of Century Boulevard last month and helped block cars from reaching Los Angeles International Airport in a show of solidarity with the region’s hotel workers.

That demonstration and the subsequent arrest of

raman,

Soto-Martnez, Raman and nearly 200 others made headlines for obvious reasons. Zippers and police handling aside, the presence of the two councilors was not surprising.

In recent months, a range of federal, state and local politicians, including several members of the city council, have walked on picket lines or offered support not only to Unite Here Local 11, the hotel workers’ union, but also to TV and film writers working outside studios. and Schoolworkers demonstrate outside Los Angeles Unified campuses.

Yet in recent weeks, attorneys with Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office has quietly begun advising the city’s elected officials to refrain from

getting involved

in labor disputes, saying such activities could lead to legal action against the city.

In a July 3 confidential memo, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times, Feldstein’s team warned Soto

of the city

elected leaders that if they show up on picket lines or join protesters, they

power

should refrain from voting

a

related

problem

in the future.

“Participation in such activities by multiple members could affect the council’s ability to meet the quorum on matters involving the union or the employers and could expose the city to liability,” the memo said.

That advice threatens to throw a damp blanket on LA’s hot labor summer, which has seen a series of strikes and labor actions in the hospitality and entertainment industries. The memo also goes against decades of pro-union activism in Los Angeles, a deep-blue city where organized labor and municipal politics are inextricably intertwined.

LA’s politicians have over the years shown their support for teachers, janitors, longshoremen and a host of other unionized professions. Councilman Kevin de Len, asked about the memo

load

week, said he does not intend to waive his right to freedom of expression and assembly.

De Len, who ran for mayor last year with more than $430,000 in support from Unite Here Local 11, said he plans to remain outspoken about workers’ demands for fair wages, even when they are on strike.

“Legal opinions do not diminish the constitutional rights of elected officials who use their voices to defend the struggles of hotel employees or Hollywood writers in their fight for dignity and respect,” he said in a statement.

Kurt Petersen, co-chair of Unite Here Local 11, had an even stronger response, saying the memo “is based on an extreme and unsupported mischaracterization of federal labor law.”

“There is nothing inappropriate about city officials exercising their individual constitutional freedom of speech to align with or show support for workers on the picket lines,” he said in a statement.

Soto-Martnez, a former organizer of Unite Here, offered a more diplomatic assessment, saying he appreciates the advice of the city attorney and will use it to “weigh the pros and cons” of any action he takes. undertake in the future.

“I’ve shown up to work for Angelenos all my life, that’s why I was chosen. I will do what I can to make sure they are treated fairly,” he said in a statement. “If there’s an issue that might involve recovery, I’ll consult with the city attorney and go from there.”

A spokeswoman for Raman

who was arrested along with Soto-Martnez at the hotel staff protest,

said her boss was not available to discuss the memo.

Neither Feldstein Soto nor her spokesperson responded to requests for comment from The Times.

In the memo, the city attorney’s legal team said

she

it provided

their

his advice in response to questions from elected officials about protests in support of Unite Here.

She

The lawyers acknowledged that those officials, in their capacity as individuals, still retain their “constitutional rights of speech and assembly and are free to exercise those rights in peaceful union protests.”

The lawyers suggested that council members appearing at protests over contract disputes make it clear that they are speaking in their own capacity, not as elected officials, to avoid concerns about “bias and impartiality”. They also suggested that city-elected officials who appear on picket lines do so as a legal observer, not a participant, and avoid wearing clothing bearing the city’s seal.

Lawyers for Feldstein Soto said many of their concerns are based on a federal law that prohibits the city from using “economic pressure or regulatory powers” to interfere in union disputes. They quote Golden State Transit Corp. vs. City of Los Angeles, a sprawling one

legal

case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court twice and arose from actions taken by the council during a labor dispute more than 40 years ago.

The saga began in 1981, when the council intervened on behalf of a Teamsters

local

chapter on strike against Yellow Cab Co., the city’s largest taxi company at the time. At the behest of the Teamsters, the city voted to block the renewal of the Yellow Cabs franchise due to the

laboratory

dispute.

The cab company subsequently went out of business, and Golden State Transit Corp., the parent company of Yellow Cabs, south of town.

The Supreme Court twice ruled in favor of the company, concluding that the city improperly interfered in a labor dispute, and later ruled that the city was liable for damages.

The Golden State Transit decisions are groundbreaking labor law interests and the case has cost the city millions. Still, several legal experts said they don’t believe it impacts the types of activities assessed by Feldstein Soto.

Professor Emeritus at Stanford Law School

William B. Gould IV, a professor emeritus at Stanford Law School, said he sees no reason why the city’s elected officials should be discouraged from joining picket lines during a labor dispute. The precedent of the Golden State Transit centered on a government decision, not a speech, said Gould, a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, also drew a strong split between the councils’ 1981 vote to block the renewal of the Yellow Cabs franchise and

demonstrations of

Support for hotel employees or Hollywood screenwriters.

There is a huge difference between the city, as an entity, taking the coercive action not to renew a contract, and individual city officials expressing their views, he said in an email.

Former Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich said he provided no such guidance during his tenure between 2009 and 2013. “If someone does something stupid on the picket lines, I don’t see a problem with it,” he said. “But everyone defines stupid differently.”

Feldstein Soto’s memo provided another reason for city leaders to refrain from participating in Unite Here protests: The city has a contract with a union hotel the LA Grand in downtown Los Angeles, which is being used as temporary housing for the homeless at a price point. cost of nearly $4,700 per room per month.

The LA Grand could argue that protesting with Unite Here Local 11 employees is evidence of bias against the hotel or “improper interference with the hotel’s contractual rights,” the memo said.

Catherine Fisk, faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Work, said she had never heard of a situation where

Where

a government lawyer has directed elected officials not to speak out about a high-profile labor dispute.

Still, Fisk said it’s not irrational for the city’s attorney to write a letter detailing the litigation risk posed by the Golden State Transit case.

To be fair, attorneys for organizations and the city attorney is an attorney for an organization, it’s their job to worry about potential risks of liability to the organization, she said.