Public Sector Case Notes
| Jurisdiction | California,United States |
| Author | By Kerianne Steele and Alejandro Delgado |
| Publication year | 2021 |
| Citation | Vol. 35 No. 4 |
By Kerianne Steele and Alejandro Delgado
Kerianne Steele is a shareholder with Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, where she represents unions and employees, primarily in the public sector. Alejandro Delgado is a shareholder of the Los Angeles office of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. He represents and advises public sector unions in all aspects of labor and employment law.
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, 60 Cal. App. 5th 327 (2021)
The Second District Court of Appeal held: (1) the administrative remedies available under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) were inadequate; and thus Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (Union) was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a judicial action against a county; (2) Labor Code section 221, which makes it unlawful for any employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages paid by an employer to an employee did not apply to the County of Los Angeles (County); and thus did not prohibit County from recovering overpayments; and (3) wage garnishment laws did not apply to and did not prohibit County from recovering overpayments.
Union sought a writ of mandate and declaration that a provision of the MOU between Union and County was unenforceable, on the grounds that it violated the wage garnishment laws and the Labor Code. In the provision at issue, the parties agreed on how paycheck errors would be corrected, including how overpayments to employees would be recovered by County. County demurred, alleging that Union failed to exhaust its remedies under the MOU, that those remedies were inadequate, and that Union failed to state valid claims. The trial court sustained the demurrer. Union appealed.
The Court held that Union's administrative remedies were inadequate and dismissal on that ground was improper. However, the Court also held that dismissal was proper because Union's petition did not state valid claims against County. The Court found that Labor Code section 221 did not apply to County, because its provisions were not made specifically applicable to public employers, and, therefore, only applied to private employers. Moreover, the Court reasoned that the home rule doctrine gave County the exclusive right to regulate matters relating to its employees' compensation. The Court further held that the recovery of overpayments of wages was within County's exclusive authority as a charter county. Thus, County could provide for compensation and do so through a collective bargaining agreement approved by the board of supervisors.
The Court applied these same principles, holding that the wage garnishment laws did not apply to County. The Court reasoned that California Government Code section 19838 required reimbursement to the State of overpayments made to State employees with payroll deduction as the default method, if the parties did not agree. On this basis, the Court concluded that the proposition that wage garnishment laws apply to public employees does not prevent public employers from recovering overpayments by payroll deductions. The Court further reasoned that the Board of Supervisors' authorization for the recovery of overpayments to employees was permitted and lawful under the home rule doctrine.
To continue reading
Request your trial