A state appeals panel has rejected an attempt by a professor to force California's public university system to reimburse his work-from-home costs during the Covid campus shutdowns.
The decision marks the latest ruling again finding labor laws that the state of California imposes on private employers don’t necessarily extend to government agencies.
In an April 1 ruling, a three-justice panel of the California Second District Appellate Court acted on a case remanded from the state Supreme Court. The dispute involves Patrick Krug, a California State University biology professor who sued the school after it declined to reimburse him for expenses he paid in order to teach from home under Covid mitigation protocols.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl dismissed the complaint, agreeing with CSU’s position it is exempt from the applicable Labor Code provisions. Krug appealed, and the panel upheld the dismissal. The state Supreme Court, pending its 2024 ruling in Stone v. Alameda Health System, granted review of Krug’s appeal and sent the case back to the appellate court for reconsideration.
Justice Michelle Kim wrote the panel’s opinion of that review, filed April 1; Justices Helen Bendix and Gregory Weingart concurred.
Krug alleged CSU started remote classes in March 2020 but denied him access to his school office to retrieve his work computer and printer. As such, he said he was on the hook for “electricity, postage, internet service charges, use of personal phones for work-related purposes, office supplies, chairs, computers, printers, ink and toner, and computer monitors required to perform his work,” according to Kim.
His putative class action accused the school of violating a California Labor Code provision obligating employers to “indemnify (an) employee for all necessary expenditures … incurred … in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.”
Although he at one point added a claim under the state's controversial Private Attorneys General Act claim, Krug later conceded it isn’t viable.
According to Kim, Stone involved hospital workers claiming their employer violated Labor Code provisions regarding meal and rest breaks. In that case, the state’s top court found public employers were expressly excluded from the relevant provisions, and further that a 2001 amendment applying certain Wage Order clauses to public workers didn’t alter the exemptions for other code language.
“The Stone court rejected the employees’ argument that the ‘sovereign powers principle,’ by which government entities are presumed not to be included in generally worded statutes only if their inclusion would result in an infringement upon sovereign governmental powers, did not apply because the hospital lacked sovereignty,” Kim wrote.
Krug based his arguments on a Labor Code section he said didn’t explicitly include public employers, making it applicable to all workers. CSU argued that lack of specificity supports its position that public employers are exempt. While the panel said both Krug and CSU presented reasonable readings of that specific clause, Kim explained the guidance from Stone requires reading the law in its larger context, and doing so favors the university.
Other parts of Labor Code Article 2 specifically address when public employers are implicated, Kim noted, including amendments in 1979 and several in the 1990s, which “weighs heavily against a conclusion that the Legislature intended to expose public employers to employer reimbursement liability.” Further, the law includes instances where public employers are required to reimburse employees, such as when certain hospitals require training for nurses, underscoring the opportunity lawmakers had — but haven’t used — to make rules for public university workers.
The panel further explored the legislative history, including the original 1937 Labor Code enactment, drawn substantially from the 1872 Civil Code, and characterized Krug’s arguments as narrowly relying on certain definitions and drawing contrary inferences from what lawmakers did or didn’t expressly write. Kim repeatedly noted the panel found positive indicators the provision in question “was intended to apply only to private employers” and further said 21st Century legislative action also comports with CSU’s position.
With the original judgment affirmed, each party will bear its own costs for litigating the appeal.
Krug is represented by attorneys from the Stiller Law Firm and the firms of Hennig Kramer Ruiz & Singh and Gunn Coble.
Representing the university are attorneys from the firm of Call & Jensen.