94 Cal.App.5th 1158
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In March 2020 CSU directed faculty to teach remotely for the COVID-19 pandemic; Professor Patrick Krug could not access his office and bought computer equipment and other home-office items.
- Krug requested reimbursement; CSU denied reimbursement, relying on its authority as a state agency to set equipment and allowance policies.
- Krug sought a DLSE opinion (which disagreed with CSU) and then sued CSU under Labor Code § 2802 for reimbursement, later adding a PAGA claim.
- CSU demurred, arguing the Labor Code provision does not apply to it because doing so would trench on its sovereign powers vested by the Education Code; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment for CSU.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: § 2802 does not apply to Krug’s claim because applying it here would impair CSU’s sovereign discretion under Education Code §§ 89036 and 89500 to set procurement and employee-allowance rules; the PAGA claim fails because there is no underlying § 2802 violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Labor Code § 2802 applies to CSU | Krug: § 2802's general term “employer” includes public employers absent an express exception | CSU: General statutes exclude government absent express words; applying § 2802 would infringe CSU’s sovereign powers vested by the Education Code | § 2802 does not apply here; applying it would infringe CSU’s sovereign discretion over procurement and employee allowances |
| Whether legislative silence on “employer” is a positive indicium of intent | Krug: Silence means public employers are included (courts have applied general terms to public employers) | CSU: Presumption excludes governmental agencies unless positive indicia show otherwise | Court: Presumption excludes government; absence of express inclusion is not a positive indicium |
| Whether Education Code §§ 89036 and 89500 require CSU to follow § 2802 | Krug: Education Code says rules must be made “pursuant to . . . other applicable provisions of law,” so CSU must comply with § 2802 | CSU: Those Education Code provisions expressly give CSU discretion “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” so subjecting CSU to § 2802 would conflict with and curtail that discretion | Held for CSU: Education Code grants CSU discretion over equipment/allowances and precludes inferring § 2802 applies here |
| Whether Krug’s PAGA claim survives if § 2802 does not apply | Krug: PAGA civil penalties available for Labor Code violations | CSU: If § 2802 does not apply, there is no underlying violation and no aggrieved employee for PAGA | Held: PAGA claim fails because there is no underlying § 2802 violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation, 39 Cal.4th 1164 (explains presumption that general statutes do not include government absent express words or positive indicia)
- Regents of University of California v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 17 Cal.3d 533 (sovereign-powers canon: exclude government where statute would impair sovereign functions)
- Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829 (principle of construing Labor Code to effectuate employee-protective purpose)
- McLean v. State of California, 1 Cal.5th 615 (statutory interpretation rules and remedial purpose of wage statutes)
- Flowers v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 243 Cal.App.4th 66 (examples of applying general wage terms to public employers when no exemption exists)
- In re Work Uniform Cases, 133 Cal.App.4th 328 (holding § 2802 predecessor did not apply to counties/cities/state in uniform-cost context)
- Sargent v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 61 Cal.App.5th 658 (recognizing CSU as a state agency with sovereign educational functions)
- Slivkoff v. Board of Trustees, 69 Cal.App.3d 394 (discussing Education Code § 89500 does not automatically exempt CSU from otherwise applicable law, cited for contextual interpretation)