California state workers are challenging a new mandate requiring them to return to the office four days a week starting July 1, as the largest state workers union warns of potential mass departures from the workforce. The July 1 deadline marks the implementation of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s return-to-office order, which has sparked significant pushback from employees and public employee unions across the state.
Anica Walls, president of SEIU Local 1000—the union representing about 96,000 state workers—said the mandate could trigger departures. “I feel like there will be a mass exodus,” Walls said in an interview with KCRA. “I feel like the state needs to be ready for a mass exodus. We have individuals who have been teetering retirement, who look at this 4-days a week when they have been doing their job efficiently in a hybrid schedule will probably send them into a retirement.”
State workers have worked efficiently under hybrid schedules since the COVID-19 pandemic, according to union representatives. The mandate does not account for department-specific needs or existing workspace constraints, Walls argued, saying “this mandate as overarching as it is, does not give departments the space to bring back our workers as needed.”
Legal Challenge and Legislative Push
A union representing California state legal workers invoked the state’s landmark environmental law—the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—to challenge the return-to-office mandate. In letters sent to more than 104 state agencies in May 2026, attorneys for CASE (a labor group representing state attorneys and hearing officers) argued that the mandate “will result in significant environmental impacts” and promised legal action if the state fails to conduct an environmental review.
The union contended that requiring more than 90,000 workers to commute four days per week “will require hundreds of thousands of additional monthly commutes by state workers, creating hundreds of thousands of new car trips and thousands of tons of additional air pollution from automobile tailpipes,” according to the Los Angeles Times. UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf said the union has “a very plausible argument” under CEQA case law, though he noted the law’s broad application sometimes favors the status quo over practical policy decisions.
In response to the mandate, Democratic Assemblyman Alex Lee authored AB 1729, which would require state agencies to provide telework options or publicly justify why specific roles must be performed in-office. State workers packed committee hearings at the Capitol this week to advocate for the bill. Lee said he has heard from workers across California who love their jobs but are unwilling to relocate. “I have heard from so many state workers from even the Bay Area all up and down the state who said this is the thing that matters the most to them,” Lee said. “They don’t want to move. They love their job, but they don’t, they aren’t willing to move after working 4-5 years in state service.”
Lee’s proposal also requires the state to establish an online dashboard to track taxpayer savings from telework. Lee and SEIU have estimated that remote work saves the state up to $225 million annually, a figure supported by a 2025 State Auditor report that concluded California could save as much as $225 million per year by reducing office space through continued telework arrangements.
Sources
- KCRA — California state workers union warns of mass exodus, Anica Walls quote, AB 1729 details, $225 million savings estimate
- Los Angeles Times — Union invokes CEQA to challenge return-to-office mandate, environmental impact arguments
- CalMatters — State workers fight Newsom’s return-to-office mandate, legislative context
- California State Auditor — 2024-118 State Telework Policies report confirming $225 million annual savings estimate
