483 P.3d 144
Cal.2021Background
- Plaintiffs worked as belt sorters at two Los Angeles County sanitation facilities; they were employed by contractor Barrett Business Services, not by the sanitation district.
- Sorting work involved removing nonrecyclables, clearing obstructions, and separating recyclables on conveyor belts.
- Plaintiffs sued as a class asserting prevailing wage and related claims under the Public Works Chapter (Labor Code § 1720), alleging their labor was "public work" under § 1720(a)(2) (work done for irrigation, utility, reclamation, improvement, and similar districts).
- Barrett moved to strike the prevailing-wage allegations, arguing § 1720(a)(2) is limited to construction-type activities (as described in § 1720(a)(1)); the trial court granted the motion.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, and the Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the belt-sorting labor falls within § 1720(a)(2).
- The Supreme Court held § 1720(a)(2) is not limited to construction-type activities and that the belt sorters’ work qualifies as public work under that subdivision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "work" in Labor Code § 1720(a)(2) (work done for covered districts) is limited to construction-type activities | § 1720(a)(2)'s plain term "work" is broad and covers belt-sorting performed for a covered district | The word "work" in (a)(2) should be read as limited by the construction-oriented list in § 1720(a)(1) | Court held (a)(2) is independent and not confined to the activities listed in (a)(1); belt-sorting qualifies as public work under (a)(2) |
| Whether the irrigation/operation exclusion removes plaintiffs' work from coverage | N/A (plaintiffs alleged exclusion inapplicable) | Barrett argued the labor was operational and thus excluded | Court accepted that the exclusion did not apply here; defendant waived some operational arguments and court found plaintiffs' work not within that exclusion |
| Whether administrative interpretations (DIR decisions) controllingly limit (a)(2) to construction-type work | Department's prior broader rulings support coverage of non-construction work for districts | DIR issued some decisions (2006–07) narrowing (a)(2), which Barrett relied on | Court declined deference to the narrow, inconsistent DIR rulings and relied on text, context, and legislative history |
| Whether harmonizing related statutes requires narrowing (a)(2) to construction | N/A | Barrett argued in‑pari materia and later statutes show prevailing wages apply only to construction projects | Court refused to rewrite (a)(2) to conform to differently worded provisions; different contexts permit different definitions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lusardi Constr. Co. v. Aubry, 1 Cal.4th 976 (1992) (prevailing wage law’s purpose is to protect and benefit employees on public works)
- City of Long Beach v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 34 Cal.4th 942 (2004) (legal standard for de novo review of statutory coverage questions)
- State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. City of Vista, 54 Cal.4th 547 (2012) (historical discussion of prevailing wage law codification)
- Azusa Land Partners v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 191 Cal.App.4th 1 (2010) (treats § 1720(a)(1) and (a)(2) as separate definitions with independent scope)
- Reclamation Dist. No. 684 v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 125 Cal.App.4th 1000 (2005) (recognizes broad rule that work done for a reclamation district may be public work)
- Reliable Tree Experts v. Baker, 200 Cal.App.4th 785 (2011) (treats non-construction activities in the public-works context)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) (agency interpretations that shift over short periods receive little deference)