SHEPPARD v. NORTH ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM










Filed 12/23/10







CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JAMES SHEPPARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NORTH ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM, Defendant and Respondent.

G041956 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC11086) O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David C. Velasquez, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Law Office of David J. Duchrow, David J. Duchrow, Jill A. Piano; Spencer Rice, The Spencer Law Firm, Marilynn Mika Spencer and Wayne J. Rice for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Warren S. Kinsler, Nate J. Kowalski, Anthony P. De Marco, Sharon J. Ormond, and Jennifer D. Cantrell for Defendant and Respondent.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Brian P. Walter and David A. Urban for California School Boards Association and its Educational Legal Alliance, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
* * *

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff James Sheppard was a part‑time instructor employed by defendant North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (NOCROP). NOCROP was created by four public school districts. During his employment, Sheppard was required to spend 20 minutes of unpaid time preparing for every hour he spent teaching. Sheppard sued NOCROP and sought compensation for his unpaid preparation time by asserting claims for violation of the minimum wage law, pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission's (IWC) wage order No. 4‑2001 (Wage Order No. 4‑2001)[1] and Labor Code section 218, breach of contract, and quantum meruit. (All further statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise specified.)
Following a series of challenges to Sheppard's pleadings, judgment was entered in favor of NOCROP. Sheppard contends the trial court erred by (1) ordering judgment on the pleadings as to the violation of the minimum wage law claim contained in the first amended complaint; (2) sustaining, without leave to amend, NOCROP's demurrer to Sheppard's breach of contract claim as contained in the original complaint; and (3) sustaining, without leave to amend, NOCROP's demurrer to his quantum meruit claim as contained in the third amended complaint.
We reverse in part and affirm in part. We reverse the trial court's order granting judgment on the pleadings as to the violation of the minimum wage law claim. Sheppard alleged he was employed by a regional occupational program which was the creation of one or more public school districts through Education Code section 52301. We conclude the minimum wage provision in Wage Order No. 4‑2001 applies to Sheppard's employment with NOCROP. We hold the Legislature has plenary authority over public school districts and was constitutionally authorized to vest in the IWC, through section 1173, the power to impose the minimum wage law provision contained in Wage Order No. 4‑2001 as to employees of such public school districts. (For the reasons we explain, this holding is limited to employees of public school districts.) We therefore reverse the trial court's order granting judgment on the pleadings as to the violation of the minimum wage law claim.
We also reverse the order sustaining NOCROP's demurrer to Sheppard's breach of contract claim. California Supreme Court precedent establishes that a public employee has a contractual right to earned but unpaid compensation, which is protected by the state Constitution.
We affirm the order sustaining the demurrer to the quantum meruit claim because the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) bars the assertion of such a claim against a public entity.

BACKGROUND
In November 2004, Sheppard filed a complaint against NOCROP for failure to pay wages in violation of Wage Order No. 4‑2001, failure to pay wages in breach of a written contract, and unfair competition. The complaint alleged that â€