Skidgel v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

12 Cal.5th 1

493 P.3d 196

282 Cal.Rptr.3d 639

Tamara SKIDGEL, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent.

S250149

Supreme Court of California.

August 19, 2021

Legal Services of Northern California, Stephen E. Goldberg, Wade Askew; Downey Brand and Jay-Allen Eisen, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Carole Vigne, Katherine Fiester; Rothner, Segall & Greenstone, Anthony R. Segall, Hannah Weinstein, Pasadena; Anna Kirsch; Jenna Lauter Miara ; Daniela Urban; Anthony Mischel, San Francisco, Catherine Ruckelhaus and Nayantara Mehta, Oakland, for Bet Tzedek, Center for Workers’ Rights, Legal Aid at Work, National Employment Law Project, United Domestic Workers of America, AFSCME Local 3930, AFL-CIO and Women's Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate University School of Law as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Laurel R. Webb for Service Employees International Union Local 2015 as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Edward DuMont and Michael J. Mongan, State Solicitors General, Janill L. Richards, Principal Deputy State Solicitor General, Julie Weng-Gutierrez and Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorneys General, Susan M. Carson, Gregory D. Brown and Hadara R. Stanton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J.

The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program ( Welf. & Inst. Code, § 12300 et seq. ) authorizes certain disabled and elderly Californians to receive in-home services from third parties or family members, paid for with public funds. Under one program option — which we will refer to as the Direct Hiring method — service recipients directly hire their own providers, and the providers are then paid either by the recipients with funds they have received from a public entity or by a public entity itself. We granted review in this case to consider whether, under these circumstances, a provider who is the recipient's minor child, parent, or spouse is covered by the state's unemployment insurance program. The Court of Appeal answered this question in the negative, reasoning that sections 631 and 683 of the Unemployment Insurance Code¹ exclude such a provider from coverage. ( Skidgel v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 574, 577–578, 234 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 ( Skidgel ).) For reasons that follow, we agree with the Court of Appeal's conclusion and affirm its judgment.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In October 2015, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) ruled in a Precedent Benefit Decision (PBD) — In re Caldera (2015) CUIAB Precedent Benefit Dec. No. P-B-507 — that an IHSS caregiver who was providing services to her son was not entitled to unemployment benefits. It based its conclusion on two provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Code: sections 631 and 683. The former provides: " ‘Employment’ does not include service performed by a child under the age of 18 years in the employ of his father or mother, or service performed by an individual in the employ of his son, daughter, or spouse, except to the extent that the employer and the employee have, pursuant to Section 702.5, elected to make contributions to the Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund." ( § 631.) The latter states in relevant part that " ‘Employer’ also means any employing unit which employs individuals to perform" IHSS services, pays at least $1000 in wages for such services during a specified time frame, "and is one of the following: [¶] (a) The recipient of such services, if the state or county makes or provides for direct payment to a provider chosen by the recipient or to the recipient of such services for the purchase of services, subject to the provisions of Section 12302.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code." (§ 683, subd. (a).) These statutes, the CUIAB reasoned, "confirm that IHSS caregivers who care for their own children are employed by that care recipient with the consequence that the wages earned in that work cannot be used to support a claim for unemployment insurance benefits," regardless of whether some other entity — such as the state or a county — "might possibly represent an additional employer." (Caldera , at p. 4.)

Only one year earlier, the CUIAB had reached the opposite conclusion in a nonprecedential decision, ruling that a woman providing care to her son and receiving direct payments from a public entity qualified for unemployment benefits notwithstanding section 631 based on her joint employment by the public entity. (In re Ostapenko (2014) CUIAB Dec. No. AO-336919.) In December 2014, the State Department of Social Services and the Employment Development Department sent letters to the CUIAB disagreeing with Ostapenko , asserting that section 631 renders IHSS providers ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits in this context, and urging the CUIAB not to adopt Ostapenko as a PBD.

In April 2016, about six months after the CUIAB issued Caldera , plaintiff Tamara Skidgel challenged that decision by filing this action under section 409.2, which authorizes interested persons to obtain a judicial declaration as to the validity of a PBD. She alleged the following: She had been an IHSS provider for her daughter since May 2013 and expected to be eligible for unemployment insurance when her employment ended. Caldera would "cause [her] to be denied unemployment insurance when her employment ... ends" because it "held that IHSS providers who provide services for their children ... are ineligible for Unemployment Insurance." Caldera "is invalid" for two reasons: (1) "IHSS providers who provide services for their children ... are eligible for unemployment insurance under ... Section 683"; and (2) because such providers have "a joint employer" in addition to the recipient — either "the county" providing the services or "the public authority" that the county has "establish[ed] and contract[ed] with ... to provide [those] services" — section 631 "does not preclude them from being eligible for unemployment insurance." Based on a joint record consisting of the comments submitted to the CUIAB and the parties’ briefing, the trial court affirmed Caldera ’s validity and entered judgment for the CUIAB.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that "the relevant statutes," though "not patently clear," are "best read[ ] ... in light of their plain language and legislative history" as establishing that IHSS recipients are "the sole employers of IHSS providers under" the Direct Hiring method "for purposes of unemployment insurance coverage. It follows that ... section 631 excludes IHSS providers who serve close-family-member recipients." ( Skidgel , supra , 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 586, 234 Cal.Rptr.3d 528, fn. omitted.)

We then granted plaintiff's petition for review.

II. DISCUSSION

PBDs "are akin to agency rulemaking, because they announce how governing law will be applied in future cases." ( Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 101, 109, 172 Cal.Rptr. 194, 624 P.2d 244 ( Pacific Legal Foundation ).) Accordingly, in declaratory relief actions under section 409.2 challenging PBDs, courts "determine whether the [CUIAB's] decision accords with the law that would govern were the rule announced articulated as a regulation." ( Pacific Legal Foundation , at p. 111, 172 Cal.Rptr. 194, 624 P.2d 244.) "[I]n light of the Board's expertise, its interpretation of a statute [that] it routinely enforces is entitled to great weight ...." ( American Federation of Labor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1017, 1027, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 920 P.2d 1314.) Ultimately, however, "[s]tatutory construction is a matter of law for the courts [citation], and administrative interpretations must be rejected where contrary to statutory intent." ( Pacific Legal Foundation , at p. 111, 172 Cal.Rptr. 194, 624 P.2d 244.) Thus, "[a]lthough" a PBD's interpretation of a statute is entitled to " ‘great weight,’ " we will not "accept" it "if ‘[the CUIAB's] application of legislative intent is clearly unauthorized or erroneous.’ " ( United Educators of San Francisco etc. v. California Unempl. Ins. Appeals Bd. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 805, 820, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 384, 456 P.3d 1.)

The PBD at issue here relates to operation of the unemployment insurance law — principally sections 631 and 683 — in the context of the IHSS program. After summarizing that program and analyzing the relevant statutes within that context, we conclude, like the Court of Appeal, that IHSS caregivers who provide services to a family member specified in section 631 are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

A. The IHSS Program

IHSS is a social welfare program that, through a combination of state and federal funding, provides in-home supportive care for aged, blind, and disabled persons. ( Reilly v. Marin Housing Authority (2020) 10 Cal.5th 583, 587–588, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 472 P.3d 472 ( Reilly ).) It "is specifically ‘designed to avoid institutionalization of incapacitated persons.’ [Citation.] Providers perform nonmedical supportive services for IHSS recipients, such as domestic services, personal care services, protective supervision, and accompaniment to health-related appointments." ( Id. at p. 588, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 472 P.3d 472.) " ‘[T]he vast majority of home care is provided by family and friends.’ " ( Id. at p. 589, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 472 P.3d 472.)

"The State Department of Social Services (Department) administers the IHSS program in compliance with state and federal law" and "promulgates regulations to implement the relevant statutes." ( Reilly , supra , 10 Cal.5th at p. 588, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 472 P.3d 472.) Counties "administer[ ] the program locally on behalf of the state in accordance with the statutes and state regulations establishing a uniform range of services available to all eligible recipients." ( Service Employees Internat....