In re Acknowledgment Cases, 239 Cal. App. 4th 1498

Background

The City of Los Angeles required newly hired LAPD officers to attend and graduate from the LAPD Police Academy and to sign an "Acknowledgment" promising to remain with LAPD 60 months or reimburse prorated training costs if they left and joined another law‑enforcement agency within one year.
LAAC § 4.1700 and the Acknowledgment set the reimbursement obligation; coordinated suits were filed by the city against dozens of former officers for breach; defendants asserted Labor Code defenses among others.
Four representative defendants were tried; the trial court entered judgment for the city on breach against most defendants and awarded attorney fees to the city for some defendants; some defendants prevailed below.
Defendants argued the Acknowledgment violated Labor Code §§ 2802 and 2804 (employer must indemnify employees for necessary expenditures; contracts purporting to waive § 2802 are void); city argued POST training is statutorily required and thus not covered by § 2802 and that apportionment could allow recovery for employer‑mandated training.
The Court of Appeal concluded basic POST training is a statutory prerequisite (licensure) and therefore an employee expense, but training that exceeds POST (department‑required training) is employer‑mandated and must be borne by the city; because the trial record lacked apportionment evidence, the Acknowledgment was declared entirely void under Labor Code § 2804 as applied in these coordinated cases.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether LAAC § 4.1700 / the Acknowledgment is valid despite Labor Code §§ 2802/2804	City: POST basic training is mandated by statute so § 2802 doesn’t apply; recruits paid nothing out‑of‑pocket; ordinance enforceable	Defs: Labor Code § 2802 requires employer to bear necessary costs of employment; § 2804 voids contracts waiving § 2802	Court: Basic POST training is an employee expense (not covered by § 2802); training beyond POST is employer‑mandated and employer must pay; because costs were not apportioned at trial, the Acknowledgment is entirely void under § 2804 in these cases
Whether the city can seek apportionment (recover only non‑POST training costs)	City: Remand to apportion costs between POST and department‑required training so it can recover portion due	Defs: § 2804 makes any contract purporting to waive § 2802 null and void; severability/apportionment not raised below so cannot be addressed on appeal	Court: Although apportionment might be conceptually possible, equitable severability must be addressed in first instance by trial court; because it was not litigated, the court will not remand and instead voided the Acknowledgment in full for these defendants
Quantum meruit claim	City: Even if Acknowledgment invalid, city may recover reasonable value of training via quantum meruit	Defs: City failed to meet burden on quantum meruit at trial	Court: Trial court found city failed proof on quantum meruit; judgment will reflect dismissal of that claim
City’s appeal of denial of attorney fees	City: Challenges trial court denial	Defs: Moot if city judgment reversed	Court: City’s appeal moot because judgment on breach reversed; appeal dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008) (broad purpose of Lab. Code § 2802: employer bears costs inherent in conducting business and indemnifies employees)
City of Oakland v. Hassey, 163 Cal.App.4th 1477 (2008) (upholding municipal training‑reimbursement scheme; court declined to address § 2802 issue because not raised below)
People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co., 24 Cal.4th 415 (2000) (standard of independent statutory interpretation review)
International Engine Parts, Inc. v. Feddersen & Co., 9 Cal.4th 606 (1995) (application of statute to undisputed facts reviewed independently)
Marathon Entm’t, Inc. v. Blasi, 42 Cal.4th 974 (2008) (severability is fact‑specific and lies in trial court’s equitable discretion)