AB 692 and Its Impact on Police Training Repayment Agreements

    In recent years, the practice of requiring police officers to sign repayment agreements for academy and field training officer (FTO) training has become increasingly common among public entities. This trend has sparked significant legal debate, particularly in light of cases such as City of Oakland v. Hassey and Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles. However, the introduction of Assembly Bill 692 (AB 692) could potentially reshape the legal landscape surrounding these agreements.

Understanding AB 692

    AB 692 aims to address the fairness and legality of repayment agreements imposed on police officers for training costs. The bill seeks to ensure that such agreements do not violate labor laws or unfairly burden officers who choose to leave their positions before a specified period. The bill's provisions are designed to protect officers from being coerced into agreements that may not align with their best interests or the public policy of promoting fair labor practices.

Applicability to Public Entities

    One of the critical questions surrounding AB 692 is whether it will apply to public entities. Historically, public entities have enjoyed certain immunities and exceptions under labor laws, as seen in the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles case, where the court held that certain labor code provisions did not apply to the county. However, AB 692 explicitly targets the practices of public entities, suggesting that it intends to close these loopholes and ensure that all employers, including public entities, adhere to fair labor standards.

Potential Impact on Key Cases

City of Oakland v. Hassey

    In City of Oakland v. Hassey, the court upheld the city's right to require repayment of training costs, provided it did not violate minimum wage laws. The court found that the repayment agreement did not constitute an illegal covenant not to compete or violate wage laws, as long as the deductions did not reduce wages below the minimum wage. AB 692 could challenge this precedent by imposing stricter regulations on repayment agreements, potentially rendering such agreements unenforceable if they are deemed to coerce officers into staying or if they violate new statutory protections.

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles

    In this case, the court ruled that the labor code provision prohibiting employers from collecting wages already paid did not apply to the county, allowing it to recoup overpayments. AB 692 could overturn this decision by explicitly extending labor code protections to public entities, thereby prohibiting the recoupment of wages in a manner that violates the new standards set by the bill.

Conclusion

    AB 692 represents a significant shift in the legal framework governing police training repayment agreements. By potentially applying to public entities and challenging existing legal precedents, the bill could provide greater protections for police officers and ensure that repayment agreements are fair and equitable. Public safety unions and their members should closely monitor the progress of AB 692, as its enactment could have profound implications for labor practices within law enforcement agencies across California.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Recovery of Attorneys' Fees in Wage Cases Despite Limited Success

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit in Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. vacated a district court's award of $312,429 in attorneys' fees and costs but affirmed that plaintiffs can recover fees for work on related class and PAGA claims under a section 998 settlement agreement. Given the remedial nature of wage and hour laws, the decision ensures aggrieved workers can receive representation, even if class certification fails.

Claudia Alvarado sued Walmart for Labor Code violations, including denied meal breaks, unpaid overtime, and unreimbursed business expenses. She brought individual claims, a putative class action, and PAGA claims. After the district court denied class certification, Alvarado settled her individual claims for $22,000 under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and dismissed her PAGA claims without prejudice.

The settlement allowed Alvarado to seek "reasonable fees and costs actually incurred... in pursuit of [her] individual claims... and recoverable by law." She moved for $591,044 in fees and $44,879 in costs, arguing under Hensley v. Eckerhart that her class and PAGA work was intertwined with her successful individual claims, making apportionment unnecessary. Walmart opposed, but the district court awarded $297,799 in fees (after Alvarado's voluntary reduction) and $14,630 in costs.

On appeal, Walmart argued the agreement barred fees for anything beyond strictly individual work. The Ninth Circuit rejected this, holding that section 998 agreements do not limit fees recoverable under California law unless expressly stated. Since the agreement referenced fees "recoverable by law," it permitted Hensley recovery for intertwined claims. The court vacated the award only because the district court failed to provide a clear explanation, remanding for reconsideration.

This decision benefits California workers and unions in several ways. First, it clarifies that settling individual claims under section 998 does not forfeit fees for related class or PAGA efforts. Plaintiffs' lawyers can pursue broad litigation without fear that a partial settlement will wipe out compensation for overlapping work. Second, it upholds Hensley's flexible approach, allowing fees where claims share common facts or theories, which is common in wage cases involving systemic violations. Finally, by requiring only a "concise but clear" explanation on remand, the ruling keeps the door open for substantial fee awards proportional to the litigation's scope, even with limited monetary recovery. For unions, this means stronger leverage in negotiations and contract enforcement.