Krug v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State Univ.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal reconsidered its prior decision after the California Supreme Court remanded the case in light of Stone v. Alameda Health System. The court again held that Labor Code section 2802 does not require the California State University system to reimburse faculty for necessary work-related expenses because the statutory language, structure, and history provide positive indicia that public employers are excluded. The judgment dismissing Patrick Krug’s reimbursement and related PAGA claims was affirmed.

Holdings

1. Labor Code section 2802 does not obligate CSU, a public entity, to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. Although the statute uses the unqualified term "employer," its statutory structure and legislative history provide positive indicia that the Legislature intended to exclude public employers, except in the limited context expressly addressed by section 2802.1 concerning employer-required training in certain hospitals.
2. The superior court properly sustained CSU's demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment of dismissal because section 2802 did not provide Krug a viable reimbursement claim against CSU.
3. Krug's PAGA claim could not proceed because the underlying Labor Code section 2802 claim was not viable, and Krug conceded that the PAGA claim was not viable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Labor Code section 2802 requires the California State University, as a public entity, to reimburse employees for necessary work-related expenditures.
2. Whether the statutory language, structure, and legislative history of Labor Code section 2802 provide positive indicia that the Legislature intended the statute to apply to public employers.
3. Whether Krug's Private Attorneys General Act claim could proceed when the underlying section 2802 claim was not viable.

Disposition

affirmed