Public Sector Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Author: By J. Scott Tiedemann and Sharde C. Thomas
• Publication year: 2016
• Citation: Vol. 30 No. 3

Public Sector Case Notes

By J. Scott Tiedemann and Sharde C. Thomas

Scott Tiedemann is the Managing Partner of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, California's largest public sector labor, employment and education law firm. He is the author of the CPER Pocket Guide to the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights, as well as a chapter on that topic in California Public Sector Employment Law. Sharde Thomas provides representation and legal counsel to employers pertaining to the Affordable Care Act, education, and employment law matters.

Transportation Authority Was Not Exempt From Minimum Wage Requirements Imposed by Labor Code and Wage Order No. 9

Flowers v. Los Angeles Cnty. Metropolitan Transp. Authority, 243 Cal. App. 4th 66 (2015)

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which was created pursuant to the County Transportation Commissions Act, part of the Public Utilities Code, operates a public transportation system. In this case, the court of appeal analyzed whether the MTA is subject to certain provisions of the Labor Code, Public Utilities Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 9-2001 (Wage Order 9), which imposes minimum wage requirements and meal and rest period requirements on employers in the transportation industry.

Nathan Flowers was an MTA bus driver covered under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). After his employment with MTA ended, Flowers filed a class action lawsuit against MTA alleging, among other things, failure to pay minimum wage under Labor Code section 1194 and Wage Order 9 and failure to provide rest periods or pay premiums for missed rest periods under Labor Code section 226.7 and Wage Order 9. MTA demurred to all causes of action in the complaint. The trial court dismissed Flowers' complaint on demurrer and Flowers appealed. The court of appeal reversed.

The court of appeal determined that Wage Order 9 is expressly applicable to government entities unless a separate statutory exemption applies. After analyzing the possible exemptions under the Public Utilities Code and Labor Code, the court concluded that they did not apply.

MTA argued that Public Utilities Code sections 30257 and 30750 exempt it from minimum wage and rest break requirements imposed by the Labor Code and Wage Order 9. The court found that section 30257 - which does not expressly state that the MTA is exempt from state minimum wage requirements - did not support MTA's claimed exemption, because that section only authorized MTA to establish a personnel system and set salaries and benefits for positions in the personnel system that were not otherwise subject to a CBA.

Similarly, the court of appeal determined that section 30750 does not exempt MTA from state minimum wage requirements, but rather states that MTA's obligation to bargain in good faith, execute a collective bargaining agreement, and comply with such an agreement "shall not be limited or restricted by any other provision of law." MTA failed to explain how complying with section 30750 would limit its ability to execute a collective bargaining agreement covering the wages...