Mendoza

Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc.

Bad Law
11 Cal. 5th 1118·282 Cal. Rptr. 3d 369·492 P.3d 993
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 16, 2021S253574California11,415 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J.

California’s Labor Code requires that certain kinds of jobs performed on a public works project be compensated at a per diem rate no less than the prevailing wage paid in the area where the work is done. (Lab. Code,1 § 1771.) The Labor Code delineates with specificity the kinds of “public work” covered by the prevailing wage statutes. (See §§ 1720–1720.9.) The question here is whether the prevailing wage must be paid for plaintiffs’ mobilization work, which involved transporting heavy machinery to and from a public works site. It is undisputed that operation of the machinery at the site qualifies as “public work.” However, plaintiffs do not contend that mobilization is “public work” as that term is defined in the applicable statutes. Instead, they argue that, under Labor Code section 1772, they are “deemed to be employed upon public work” because their mobilization work was performed “in the execution” of a public works contract. Plaintiffs urge an interpretation of section 1772 that would enlarge the scope of the prevailing wage law to encompass activities that the Legislature has not otherwise defined as public work. This expansive…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.