Laborers International Union Local 261 said it was filing an amended lawsuit Wednesday in San Francisco Superior Court that alleges its workers were harassed, ostracized and deprived of sanitary and safe restrooms after the union blew the whistle on unsavory activities by city agencies. The original complaint was filed in December; the amended filing Wednesday adds two union leaders as plaintiffs and more specific allegations.
The union alleged that the city hired people to work in workforce development programs at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Department of Public Works who weren't actually working in those programs. The lawsuit said those people were hired because they had connections to city department heads and could "facilitate the flow of public funds to outside nonprofit agencies."
The union said it also found that the city was awarding public money to favored nonprofits to perform the workforce development work.
The lawsuit alleges the union exposed corrupt practices by former Public Works Director Mohammed Nuru, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges earlier this year, indicted SFPUC Executive Director Harlan Kelly and other city and county officials.
The lawsuit offers a platform for the union to amplify years of corruption allegations against the city as well as to air labor grievances about health and safety that intensified during the pandemic.
The suit contains allegations against former city officials who have not been charged with wrongdoing and contains allegations that have not been disclosed as part of federal and city investigations.
After union leaders "blew the whistle on this wide-ranging public corruption scandal," its rank-and-file members were targeted by the city, the lawsuit said.
"Like a true bully does, management of the City concentrated its efforts on the most vulnerable targets: Local 261's members, the lowest-paid City employees who work at the Department of Public Works and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission," the lawsuit said.
The plaintiffs said that prior to the pandemic, Public Works employees did not have designated restrooms, but went to local businesses. The lawsuit alleges that when lockdown hit, the city denied union members use of locked restrooms, which are reserved for Muni operators. The city said Wednesday they struck a deal and gave keys to those bathrooms to Local 261 members in December 2020.
" The Department of Human Resources is committed to ensuring that all employees work in safe and sanitary conditions," spokesperson Mawuli Tugbenyoh said. "The City is dedicated to good faith negotiations, with all City labor organizations and does not tolerate any level of retaliation or discrimination in the workplace."
Public Works spokesperson Rachel Gordon said in a statement that the department would not comment on specific allegations that are under active litigation, "but to be abundantly clear: San Francisco Public Works does not retaliate nor discriminate against our employees."
The City Attorney's Office said it would respond to the lawsuit in court.
"The City is committed to rooting out corruption wherever it exists," spokesperson Jen Kwart said in a statement.
The union is being represented by former San Francisco supervisor and mayoral candidate Angela Alioto and her law firm.
Representatives of Local 261, which represents around 1,000 city employees, including 350 street cleaners and other front-line Public Works employees affected by bathroom access, have alleged corruption and retaliation in San Francisco Public Works and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for years.
Grievances intensified when the pandemic hit. The union complained to the city and state labor safety agency CAL-OSHA about working conditions and bathroom access. Two main players who were plaintiffs are Theresa Foglio-Ramirez, who has been a public works employee since 1997 and on leave since 2012 as a union business agent, and Juan Rivera, a union shop steward who's worked for the Recreation and Parks Department and Public Works since April 2006.
Rivera claimed in the lawsuit that after raising concerns about health and safety and corruption, he was demoted with a pay cut. He said he was told by his supervisor it was because "your union and the Department are not seeing eye to eye," the lawsuit read.
Foglio-Ramirez alleged that the city's human resources department told her that if she didn't drop complaints, members would "have to accept lower wages as part of the parties' upcoming contractual negotiations."
At a Wednesday news conference, she said she begged city officials to step in and provide bathrooms but they refused to do so, telling union leadership that they were "in the doghouse."
The lawsuit took issue that, when lockdown hit, the city initially denied union members use of Muni operator restrooms. The city has some public toilets available to union members and the general public, but workers complained about the conditions. For sites without bathrooms, DPW placed portable toilets, although workers said the city regularly relocated toilets without warning.
The plaintiffs said portable beverage coolers provided for hand-washing were inadequate under California law that required sanitary facilities during the pandemic. The lawsuit alleges gender discrimination, arguing these conditions affect women more than men.
The union also raised concern with the city that their Black members in DPW were disproportionately the subject of disciplinary actions. The issue of racially inequitable discipline citywide has been acknowledged by the human resources department and in an outside consultant report.
At the same time, union representatives were complaining about working conditions, they said they were also contacting the FBI and city officials about corruption allegations in San Francisco Public Works and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
The lawsuit says the union raised concerns about community benefits programs run by the SFPUC, which includes workforce-related grants and programs where contractors can get extra points on bids to win contracts when they pledge money, volunteer hours or in-kind services to nonprofits or other organizations helping the community. As of Oct. 2019, community benefits totaled $34.2 million on projects valued at $2.2 billion, according to a city report.
A major piece of community benefits is the SFPUC's Social Impact Partnership Program. The lawsuit alleged the program is "nothing more than a slush fund" where city employees can direct donations to their contacts. City investigations to date have not backed up that conclusion.
Auditors found in December that the program was "poorly designed" and its enforcement and monitoring flawed, leading to unfulfilled promises and the possibility of abuse. The report didn't find evidence of corruption, but the scope of the investigation was only to look at the mechanisms for preventing corruption, not rooting out whether there was any.
The design of the program did not occur under the SFPUC's current leadership. Dennis Herrera, the SFPUC's new general manager since November and the former city attorney, said in December he "will be fully implementing" all the recommendations from the auditors' report to ensure accountability.
Last month, supervisors, including Dean Preston and Gordon Mar, pressed the city in a hearing to further investigate whether there was any wrongdoing.
(c)2022 the San Francisco Chronicle. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Related Articles
