Part-time Lawsuits Cause Union Crisis

Lawsuits requiring districts to pay part-time faculty for work performed outside of the classroom contributed to a crisis the Sierra College Faculty Association (SCFA), where on April 23, the union president sent out an all-faculty email announcing that voting on the tentative agreement (TA) had been “temporarily paused” and on the next day formally rescinded the TA and the full-timers on the negotiating team, including the president, resigned from the Union board.

The lawsuits and progress towards a Unified Faculty Model (One Faculty, United Faculty, One-Tier, Vancouver Model, etc.) have polarized full-timers and unions, forcing them to choose between continuing to exploit their part-time colleagues or working towards equal work for equal pay. In San Diego, both Palomar and the San Diego Community College District are named defendants in lawsuits. For more information, see the following statements from John Martin and Joan Merriam, and this article: Part-Time Long Beach City College Faculty Win Landmark Ruling.

from John Martin:

In the Martin v. Board of Governors et al, the Board of Governors/Chancellor’s Office filed a motion for summary judgment, trying to get itself entirely out of the case.  It claimed that the Board is not responsible for the Community Colleges’ failure to pay part-time faculty for all hours worked, because the Board of Governors claimed it is not an employer. 

In a major decision, the Court denied the Board of Governors’ motion, and its attempt to dismiss our case against it. This means that the Board could possibly be held accountable in the case for ensuring fair pay for part-time faculty.  This ruling is a major step forward in our fight for part-time professors across California.

At this stage, we do not have a final resolution of the case against the Board of Governors: the case still moves forward and could potentially have to be decided at trial, but it is certainly a great decision in favor of the part-time professors.

Joan Merriam:

“THE LAWSUIT”:
What it is, What it isn’t, and What it Means

In an effort to counter all the misinformation and disinformation swirling through Sierra about the class action lawsuit against the District, as one of the plaintiffs I’d like to explain a few things. 

First, some background about me: I’ve been a part-time instructor at Sierra for 28 years, served on the SCFA [Sierra College Faculty Association] Board for 12 years, oversaw the SCFA website for many years, was the editor of the SCFA monthly newsletter for over 7 years, and was one of the original members of the California Part-time Faculty Association in 1998.  

In mid- 2024, I was approached by the lead plaintiff in the class action Martin v. Board of Governors of California Community Colleges about becoming the lead plaintiff in a new class action representing Sierra’s part-time faculty and those in eight other community college districts: Monterey Peninsula, Sequoias, Palomar, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Peralta, Desert, and Mendocino-Lake.

What is this lawsuit? 

Like the Martin case and the class action filed two years earlier against the Long Beach district, Merriam v. Board of Governors of California Community Colleges seeks to address the longstanding inequities suffered by part-time faculty in the state’s community colleges. Specifically, the fact that part-time faculty are paid only for their hours spent in the classroom, and have never been compensated for the hours spent in out-of-class obligations such as preparing lectures and labs, creating and grading assignments and exams, designing new courses, developing syllabi, and consulting with students.

These cases are based on a simple fact: state law—the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission, and the California Education Code—prohibit employers from requiring “non-exempt” employees to work without pay. (A non-exempt employee is one who is typically in an hourly position, and who is paid less than two times the state minimum wage for full time employment, or $58,240 a year.) Clearly, most if not all part-time faculty fall into this category.

Who originated this lawsuit?

All these class action lawsuits were brought by individual part-time faculty members as representatives of the part-time faculty in their respective districts. It was not brought, encouraged, promoted, or underwritten by CTA [California Teachers Association] or any other state or national labor union, or by any local union such as SCFA. 

What does the lawsuit ask for?

The lawsuit alleges that the Sierra CC District and the other named districts unjustly benefitted from and were substantially enriched by decades of free labor by its part-time faculty. It asks that the Court require the District(s) to compensate, at not less than minimum wage, all part-time faculty who were employed by the District(s) from 4 years prior to the commencement of the action. In other words, it asks that the District(s) provide back pay for the uncompensated hours worked by all part-time faculty employed between February of 2021 and February of 2025.  It does not address any future compensation by the District(s).

How does the lawsuit justify its assertions?

First, the District(s) expects its full-time faculty to spend a substantial amount of time outside of class in teaching-related activities, for which they are compensated by an annual salary. Part-time faculty are expected to perform essentially the same duties, and have the same responsibilities, as their full-time colleagues, but are expected to do so without compensation.

Second, these outside-of-class duties are a major part of a part-time faculty member’s regular evaluations, as they reflect the competence of the instructor and the adequacy of their teaching. Yet, the labor that forms the basis of these evaluations is and has always been uncompensated.

What are the ramifications of the lawsuit, assuming the plaintiffs win?

Ultimately, the Court has the final say in the amount and manner of compensation awarded, or how many hours of back pay should be awarded. If the case goes to a jury trial, it would be the jury making those recommendations. 

It’s impossible to say how this action would impact the District. Certainly, there would be a financial impact . . . but it must be remembered that the District has been profiting for many decades from the free labor of its part-time faculty, something of which they were acutely aware yet chose to ignore. 

One of the key aspects of the lawsuit involves the CCC Board of Governors, in that they have neglected to seek adequate funding from the state to compensate part-time faculty, and failed to require Districts to comply with state law requiring compensation for all hours worked by non-exempt employees. Thus, at least some of the burden should rest on that Board.

I hope this explanation has clarified the who, when, and why of this class action, and will put to rest unsubstantiated rumors surrounding it.

I would be happy to provide anyone with the entire text of the lawsuit—just ask!