63 Cal.App.5th 386
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Guivini Gomez worked as an hourly, nonexempt employee for the Regents of the University of California (UCSD Medical Center) from Feb 2017 to Apr 2018.
- Gomez alleged the Regents’ timekeeping practices (rounding, usually downward, and automatic 30‑minute meal deductions) caused her to be paid less than the required minimum for hours actually worked; she did not allege her hourly rate was set below the statutory minimum.
- Gomez sued as the named plaintiff in a putative class action seeking unpaid minimum wages (Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197) and PAGA civil penalties.
- The Regents demurred, arguing constitutional immunity / autonomy of the Regents (a public trust) bars application of wage statutes and that PAGA relief was unavailable.
- The superior court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend (relying on precedent addressing the Regents’ immunity) and entered judgment for the Regents; Gomez appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do California minimum wage laws/wage orders apply to the Regents for internal timekeeping practices? | Minimum wage laws are an exercise of statewide police power; Wage Order No. 4’s Section 4 requires pay for all hours worked and therefore applies to public entities; Marquez supports applying minimum‑wage rules to public employers. | The Regents are a constitutionally created public trust with autonomy over internal affairs; precedent (Labor Council, Aubry, Kim, In re Work Uniform Cases) exempts the Regents from statutes governing wages/benefits for internal matters; Wage Order language and Labor Code definitions do not clearly include the Regents. | Affirmed: minimum‑wage claim fails as a matter of law; Regents’ timekeeping procedures are internal university affairs outside exceptions to their constitutional immunity. |
| May Gomez recover PAGA penalties against the Regents based on the failed minimum‑wage claim? | PAGA allows aggrieved employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. | PAGA is derivative of the underlying wage claim; because the minimum‑wage claim cannot be maintained against the Regents, Gomez is not an "aggrieved employee" as to the Regents. | Affirmed: PAGA claim fails because the underlying violation against the Regents was not actionable; no aggrieved‑employee standing under PAGA. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 26 Cal.3d 785 (holding Legislature cannot impose prevailing wage statute on Regents; salary determinations internal to university)
- Kim v. Regents of University of California, 80 Cal.App.4th 160 (Regents immune from state overtime claim under comparable reasoning)
- Aubry v. Regents of University of California, 42 Cal.App.4th 579 (Regents not subject to prevailing‑wage statute for internal UC projects)
- In re Work Uniform Cases, 133 Cal.App.4th 328 (Regents constitutionally immune from application of Lab. Code § 2802 re: uniform reimbursement)
- Marquez v. City of Long Beach, 32 Cal.App.5th 552 (applied wage order minimum‑wage rules to charter city employees; distinguished here as involving a charter city)
- People v. Lofchie, 229 Cal.App.4th 240 (University is a public trust, not a political subdivision)
- Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program, 191 Cal.App.4th 289 (wage order applied to an entity established by school districts; court cautioned its analysis does not automatically extend to the UC Regents)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (explaining PAGA framework and aggrieved‑employee requirement)