Garcia v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Background

Jose Garcia filed a California wage-and-hour complaint against Pacific Gas & Electric Company in state court. PG&E removed the case to federal court, arguing that some claims were preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act because they depended on Garcia’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA). PG&E moved to dismiss those claims, arguing that Garcia had not completed the CBA’s required grievance and arbitration process and had not alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation. Garcia did not dispute that any preempted claims should be dismissed, but asked the court to send any claims that were not preempted back to state court.

The court granted PG&E’s request for judicial notice of the CBAs governing Garcia’s employment from 2020 through 2025.

Claims the Court Dismissed

The court held that Garcia’s California Labor Code Section 512(a) meal-period claim was preempted under the first step of the federal preemption analysis because his right to meal periods existed solely because of the CBA. The CBA met the requirements for the applicable California Labor Code exemption.

The court also held that Garcia’s overtime claim under California Labor Code Section 512 was preempted because the CBA provided for wages, hours of work, working conditions, overtime premium rates, and a regular hourly rate exceeding 30 percent of the state minimum wage.

Garcia’s claim under California Labor Code Section 223 concerning a statutory or contractual wage scale was preempted because the wage scale came from the CBA rather than from a statute. His claim under California Labor Code Section 204(a), alleging that he was not paid semimonthly, was also preempted because the CBA provided for a different pay arrangement.

Claims That Remained

PG&E did not move to dismiss Garcia’s rest-period claim, so that claim remained. The court held that Garcia’s minimum-wage claim under California Labor Code Section 1197 could not be dismissed as preempted because employees cannot waive their minimum-wage rights through a CBA.

The court also held, at least on the record before it, that Garcia’s claim under California Labor Code Section 2802 for reimbursement of necessary expenses related to flame-resistant clothing was not preempted. The parties agreed that the claim arose from state law. Although PG&E argued that deciding the claim would require interpreting the CBA, it did not identify specific CBA language that required interpretation. PG&E referred to CBA provisions about travel, meals, moving, and personal vehicles, but those provisions did not address flame-resistant clothing. PG&E said the clothing was covered by other letter agreements but did not provide those agreements to the court.

The court also held that Garcia’s derivative claims were not preempted to the extent they relied on the rest-period, minimum-wage, and expense-reimbursement claims.

Disposition

The court granted PG&E’s motion to dismiss in part by dismissing the preempted claims. It remanded the remaining claims, all of which arose under state law, to the San Francisco County Superior Court. The court stated that it did not see how it had authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and, even if it had that authority, would decline to do so. Judge Vince Chhabria directed the clerk to remand the case.