Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program
191 Cal. App. 4th 289
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Plaintiff James Sheppard, a part-time instructor, sued NOCROP for unpaid preparation time under Wage Order No. 4-2001 and other claims.
- NOCROP was created by multiple school districts under Education Code section 52301; Sheppard alleged 20 minutes prep time per hour was unpaid.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings against the Wage Order claim, sustained demurrers to breach of contract and quantum meruit, and dismissed with prejudice after voluntary Education Code 45025 claim dismissal.
- The First Amended Complaint asserted Wage Order No. 4-2001 applies to Sheppard and that NOCROP required unpaid prep time.
- The court held Wage Order No. 4-2001 can apply to certain public employees, and that the IWC has authority under Labor Code section 1173 to regulate wages for all employees, including those of public school districts.
- The court reversed the judgment on the Wage Order claim and the breach-of-contract demurrer, but affirmed the quantum meruit demurrer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Wage Order No. 4-2001 apply to Sheppard against NOCROP? | Sheppard argues NOCROP is a public entity covered by the wage order. | Public entities are exempt from Wage Order No. 4-2001, so the order does not apply. | Yes; Wage Order 4-2001 applies to NOCROP. |
| Does the IWC have authority to regulate wages for public school employees under 1173? | 1173 confers broad authority to regulate all employees, including public sectors. | IWC authority does not expressly reach public sector employees. | IWC authority extends to public school employees under 1173. |
| Is there a viable breach of contract claim against a public entity for earned wages? | Public employees may have a contractual right to earned wages protected by the state Constitution. | Public employment terms are generally statutory; contract claims are barred. | Breath of contract claim survives; not barred as a matter of law. |
| Is the quantum meruit claim against a public entity permissible? | Quasi-contract recovery is available for unpaid services. | Gov. Code 815 bars common law/quasi-contract claims against public entities. | Quantum meruit claim is barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) (interprets statutory construction and IWC authority)
- Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation, 39 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 2006) (agency exceptions to general statutory terms; deference to wage orders)
- Bearden v. U.S. Borax, Inc., 138 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. App. 2006) (construction of wage orders; employee protections)
- Butt v. State of California, 4 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 1992) (state plenary power over public education and labor matters)
- White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528 (Cal. 2003) (public employment rights vs. statutory controls; contract clause protections)
- Miller v. State of California, 18 Cal.3d 808 (Cal. 1977) (tenure vs. statutory control; pension rights protected but not generic employment contracts)
- California Teachers Assn. v. Hayes, 5 Cal.App.4th 1513 (Cal. App. 1992) (state control over education; local districts cannot override state authority)
- Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist., 174 Cal.App.4th 729 (Cal. App. 2009) (public sector wage order applicability in policy context)
- Lachtman v. Regents of University of California, 158 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. App. 2007) (education/public employment interplay; adjudication of rights)
- Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075 (Cal. 2005) (IWC wage orders and public/private applicability; contextual authority)
- Janis v. California State Lottery Com., 68 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. App. 1998) (immunity of public entities from implied-contract claims)
- Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, 44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal. 2008) (public employee claims; contract-like protections under constitution)