KETTENRING v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 14 January 2009
• Docket Number: No. B 197513.,B 197513.
• Citation: Kettenring v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 167 Cal.App.4th 507, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 196 (Cal. App. 2009)
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Ernest KETTENRING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.

167 Cal.App.4th 507

84 Cal.Rptr.3d 196

Ernest KETTENRING, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.

No. B 197513.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Oct. 9, 2008.

Review Denied Jan. 14, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Spiro Moss Barness and Gregory N. Karasik for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Littler Mendelson, Connie L. Michaels and Barrett K. Green, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.

HASTINGS, J.^*

The Los Angeles Unified School District(LAUSD or District) pays adult education teachers a regular periodic amount, identified as a “ salary” in the applicable collective bargaining agreement, figured by multiplying a flat hourly rate for each hour of classroom teaching.LAUSD does not pay for additional time spent outside of classroom instruction for preparation, grading or other tasks in connection with the class.Ernest Kettenring, an adult education teacher in the District, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the compensation structure violates state minimum wage laws.At the parties' request, the trial court ruled on “threshold legal issues” based on stipulated facts, and determined that the Labor Code's minimum wage provisions did not apply to the District.Kettenring then filed a petition for a writ of mandate arguing that the structure as applied to part-time adult education teachers violated the Education Code.The trial court denied the petition.Kettenring appealed.

We conclude that adult education teachers fall within the professional exemption to Wage Order 4-2001.We also affirm the court's conclusion that the salary structure does not violate Education Code section 45025, which requires proportional compensation for part-time employees.

BACKGROUND

We base these facts on the joint stipulated facts filed by the parties and on the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between LAUSD and the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), which represents both regular and adult education teachers.

LAUSD provides regular instruction to more than 900,000 children throughout Los Angeles in kindergarten through twelfth grade, and also teaches approximately 90,000 adult students.The District's Adult Education Program includes basic and secondary education, citizenship preparation, English as a second language, literacy, parenting and family education, and programs for adults with disabilities.

Under the CBA, “regular education teachers generally receive an annual salary according to a salary schedule” which increases based on years of experience and education.Article XXI of the CBA governs “Adult and Career Education,” and provides that adult education teachers assigned more than 10 hours per week are within the bargaining unit.Pursuant to Appendix E of the CBA, titled “Salary Tables and Rates,” adult education teachers are compensated on a flat hourly rate for each unit-hour of classroom instruction.The rate includes step advancement and increases based on years of teaching experience.In 2004-2005, the hourly rate was between $35.58 and $46.46.

Article IX, section 3.0 provides that regular education teachers have a minimum uniform on-site obligation.Section 3.3 requires adult education teachers to be on site 10 minutes before and after their first and last classes of each day.Section 4.0 requires that all teachers, regular education and adult education alike, perform related professional duties outside of classroom hours, such as preparation, planning, grading, supervising students, or participating in District programs.¹These sections, and the practice of paying adult education teachers according to an hourly rate multiplied by the numbers of course-hours taught, have been part of the bargaining agreement between the District and the UTLA since 1978.

Ernest Kettenring and Veta Patrick, both adult education teachers, filed a complaint against the District on November 29, 2005, asserting a putative class action on behalf of themselves and other adult education teachers to recover what they term as unpaid hourly wages for time spent working outside of classroom instruction.(Patrick did not join Kettenring in this appeal.)Kettenring contended the compensation structure required him and other adult education teachers to work without pay for the mandated time spent before and after classroom instruction, including meetings, preparation, and grading.He asserted claims under Labor Code section 1194 for unpaid minimum wages and failure to pay wages timely under Labor Code section 204.He also asserted claims for waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 on behalf of adult education teachers no longer working for the District.

The District answered, and the parties stipulated that the trial court hear a preliminary motion to determine“difficult and novel ... threshold legal issues”:

1.Do Labor Code sections 203 or 204 apply to the District?

2.Is the District's payment arrangement for adult education teachers authorized under Government Code section 3540(the Educational Employment Relations Act) and the Education Code, irrespective of Labor Code section 1194 and Wage Order 4?

3.Does the payment system qualify as a piece rate system under Wage Order 4, assuming the wage order applies?

4.Are adult education teachers exempt under the professional exemption?

The parties filed a “Joint Stipulation and Statement” and stipulated to relevant facts, including that “[u]nder the existing CBA ... adult education teachers are paid a salary based on a flat hourly rate that corresponds to each hour of classroom instruction.The salary structure provides for an increasing rate based on years of teaching experience.”(Italics added.)The CBA also required the adult education teachers to be present 10 minutes before and after their first and last classes of the day, and required the teachers to perform a variety of related professional duties outside the classroom.

The trial court heard argument on the motion and issued its ruling on June 16, 2006.The court concluded:

1.Labor Code sections 203and204 did not apply to the district.

2.The payment schedule for adult education teachers was authorized by Government Code section 3540 and the Education Code.

3.The payment system was a “task” based compensation under Wage Order 4, and

4.Whether adult education teachers were exempt from Wage Order 4-2001 called for a premature factual determination.

In a joint statement, the parties agreed that the ruling was equivalent to a decision that Kettenring's complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under the Labor Code, and/or that Kettenring had no remedy against the District under the Code.The statement also announced that Kettenring planned to pursue claims against the District for a violation of Education Code section 45025.The court allowed Kettenring to proceed with a petition for a writ of mandate, which Kettenring filed on July 28, 2006.

After oral argument, the trial court issued a ruling and order re petition for a writ of mandate on October 31, 2006, concluding that Kettenring had not demonstrated that LAUSD had violated Education Code section 45025.The court entered judgment for the District on January 9, 2007, and Kettenring filed this timely appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo the trial court's application of law to stipulated facts, and may affirm the decision if it is correct on any ground, so long as the parties have had an opportunity to address the issue on appeal.( Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker(2006)138 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1155, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 191.)

DISCUSSION

I.Adult Education Teachers Qualify for the Professional Exemption From Wage Order 4-2001

Kettenring's complaint alleged that the District violated Labor Code section 1197andCalifornia Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage OrderNo. 4-2001 by failing to pay adult education teachers at least the hourly minimum wage for the hours they work outside of classroom instruction.²Labor Code section 1197 requires employers to pay the minimum wage, and section 1194 authorizes an employee who receives less than the applicable legal minimum wage, or who has not been paid for overtime, to sue the employer.

Labor Code section 515, subdivision (a), authorizes the IWC to create an exemption from overtime pay for “executive, administrative, and professional employees.”The IWC adopted Wage Order 4-2001(Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040), which provides that employers must pay employees “not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period, whether the remuneration is measured by time, piece, commission or otherwise.”The wage order includes a “professional exemption” which applies to anyone “licensed or certified by the State of California and ... primarily engaged in the practice of ... teaching,” who “customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in the performance of duties,” and who “earns a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two (2) times the state minimum wage for full-time employment”(40 hours per week).(Wage Order 4-2001, § 1(A)(3)(a), (c), (d), italics added.)The employer claiming the professional exemption-here, the District-has the burden to prove that the employees are exempt.( Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.(1999)20 Cal.4th 785, 794-795, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844, 978 P.2d 2.)

No party disputes that the adult education teachers are certified by the State of California, are engaged in teaching, exercise independent judgment, and earn, as reflected in the “salary” schedule in the CBA, a monthly compensation far higher than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment.³Their job duties and pay amount therefore qualify the adult education teachers for the professional exemption.Kettenring argues, however, that despite the parties' continuing use of the term “salary,” the compensation structure is not a true “sala...