California Governor Gavin Newsom’s return-to-office order, which requires approximately 90,000 state employees to work primarily in person at least four days per week, has sparked significant legal pushback. Among the lawsuits filed in opposition is a novel complaint by a union representing state employees, the California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearings Officers in State Employment (“CASE”) union. The lawsuit alleges that the return-to-office mandate violates the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). 

The Return-to-Office Mandate

Newsom’s directive requires that “all available workstations must be filled at least four days per week” and makes clear that insufficient office space is not an acceptable excuse for delay — agencies are expected to implement the order “to the maximum extent feasible.” The order affects approximately 90,000 state workers who have been working remotely in some capacity since the pandemic. 

This is not Newsom's first attempt at a return-to-office mandate. A similar order was issued in 2025, but its implementation was delayed by one year following negotiations between the Newsom administration and labor unions. The current order takes effect on July 1, with no further extensions anticipated.

The Legal Landscape: Multiple Challenges

The return-to-office mandate has prompted multiple legal actions, including:

• SEIU Local 1000 Unfair Practice Charge: The largest representative of California state employees filed an unfair practice charge against the Newsom administration, alleging that the state refused to bargain in good faith and unilaterally changed employees’ conditions of employment by imposing the four-day in-office attendance requirement.
• CASE's CEQA Complaint: CASE filed a separate complaint alleging that the return-to-office mandate violates CEQA because the state failed to analyze the environmental impact of requiring roughly 90,000 state workers to commute to and from work four days per week. CASE estimates that a single month of remote work saves approximately 1.2 million commute hours and 2 million gallons of fuel. 

The CEQA Theory: A Novel Approach

• What Is CEQA?

CEQA is a state law that requires public agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of their actions before carrying them out. Under CEQA, when a public agency proposes to carry out a “project” that may have a significant effect on the environment, it must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that identifies the project’s significant environmental effects, alternatives to the project, and ways those effects can be mitigated or avoided.

CEQA defines “project” broadly as an activity undertaken by a public agency that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The law establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible.

• CASE’s Argument

CASE contends that the return-to-office mandate constitutes a “project” under CEQA because it will foreseeably cause a substantial increase in carbon emissions from roughly 90,000 additional commuters on the road. CASE’s complaint cites evidence that telework likely reduces pollution and estimates significant fuel consumption and emissions associated with eliminating remote work.

Through this lawsuit, CASE seeks an injunction to stop the implementation of the return-to-office order and a proper CEQA analysis of the environmental impacts of the mandate, including the anticipated increase in carbon emissions from state workers’ commutes.

Prospects for Success: A Divided Outlook

The viability of this innovative legal theory is uncertain. On one hand, there is credible evidence that telework reduces pollution. The environmental impact of adding roughly 90,000 commuters back to California roads is not trivial, and CEQA’s definition of “project” is intentionally broad. On the other hand, observers expect numerous legal challenges arguing that CEQA is not designed to address administrative orders such as a return-to-office directive.

Conclusion

The CEQA challenge to California’s return-to-office mandate is a creative and unprecedented approach to fighting an often unpopular workplace policy through environmental law. Whether it ultimately succeeds may depend on how courts interpret the scope of CEQA’s “project” definition and whether they are willing to extend environmental review requirements to internal government attendance policies. 

Regardless of the outcome, it is expected that similar legal challenges will be brought in other states, and that future challenges could potentially expand to certain private employers.