Stoetzl v. State of California
A142832
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former correctional peace officers (represented and unrepresented subclasses) who alleged they were not paid for pre- and post-shift time spent under employer control (travel between sign-in locations and posts, briefings, equipment checks, searches, donning/doffing gear, inventories).
- Three coordinated class actions were consolidated; the court certified subclasses: represented employees (covered by CCPOA MOUs) and unrepresented supervisory employees (no MOU).
- CCPOA and the State negotiated MOUs (1998–2011) that adopted a 7(k) work period (164 or 168 hours per 28 days) and, in earlier MOUs, provided 4 hours per period for pre/post activities; MOUs were presented to and chaptered by the Legislature.
- CalHR’s Pay Scale Manual assigned unrepresented classes to Work Week Group 2 and relied on the FLSA/7(k) framework for overtime guidance for those classes.
- At Phase I trial the court held: (1) represented employees’ compensable time is governed by the FLSA “first principal activity” standard because of the MOUs; (2) unrepresented employees’ compensable time was governed by CalHR’s FLSA-based practice; (3) breach-of-contract and Labor Code §§222/223 claims were dismissed in whole or part. The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standard for compensable hours for represented employees | California wage orders (control test) apply; state law protections cannot be bargained away | MOUs (legislatively chaptered) adopted FLSA 7(k) scheme; parties bargained under federal law | Held for State: MOUs unambiguously adopt FLSA standard; represented employees governed by FLSA test |
| 2. Standard for compensable hours for unrepresented employees | Wage Order 4 (control test) applies to state employees; CalHR cannot displace wage orders by administrative manual | CalHR’s Pay Scale Manual and delegated authority set FLSA-based rules for unrepresented classes | Held for Plaintiffs (unrepresented): harmonize regimes — entitlement to overtime governed by FLSA timing but “hours worked” meaning governed by Wage Order 4; remand to determine unpaid time |
| 3. Breach of contract for unpaid overtime | Employees may assert contractual claim for earned but unpaid wages (Madera/White/Sheppard) | Represented employees’ rights are governed by the MOU (and legislative ratification); unrepresented terms are set by CalHR rules | Held: represented subclass barred (MOUs exclusive); unrepresented subclass may pursue breach claims for any additional compensation owed under California standard |
| 4. Labor Code §§222/223 claims | State withheld wages by not paying for pre/post activities; statutory wage protection cannot be waived | §222 applies only to collective bargaining; §223 targets secret deductions/kickbacks; no secret deductions here | Held: claims fail — §222 inapplicable to unrepresented; represented bound by MOUs; §223 not implicated absent secret deductions |
Key Cases Cited
- Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.3d 690 (Cal. 1980) (IWC wage orders have deference and statutory force)
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) (wage orders are the mechanism for minimum wage enforcement)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (California control test for “hours worked”)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (deference and harmonization principles for wage orders)
- Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal.4th 833 (Cal. 2015) (interpretation of wage orders and limits on importing federal standards)
- Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera, 36 Cal.3d 403 (Cal. 1984) (earned but unpaid wages can create contractual claim for overtime)
- White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528 (Cal. 2003) (contractual protection for earned compensation despite fiscal constraints)
- Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange, 52 Cal.4th 1171 (Cal. 2011) (legislation or enacted terms can create enforceable contractual rights)
- Guerrero v. Superior Court, 213 Cal.App.4th 912 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (public entities covered by applicable wage orders when not expressly exempted)