Under the Prevailing Wage Law, Labor Code sections 1720 through 1861, workers employed under a public works contract must generally be paid “prevailing wages.” The prevailing wage is set by the Director of Industrial Relations (Director) and depends on worker classification and location. The Director also creates worker classifications, determining the scope of work for each.Contractors on public works projects must pay workers the prevailing wage under the proper job classification.

Anton’s Services, a subcontractor performing clearing, grubbing, demolition, and incidental tree work on two City of San Diego public works projects (the 2017 Torrey Pines Road slope restoration and sidewalk project and the 2018 Voltaire Street bridge renovation project), classified its workers under the “Tree Maintenance (Laborer)” prevailing wage classification.

The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) determined that the work actually performed – clearing and grubbing slopes, removing vegetation and roots in preparation for soil-nail wall and sidewalk construction, and trimming/stabilizing a Torrey pine tree to permit continuation of slope work – was construction work expressly excluded from the Tree Maintenance classification and instead fell within the broader “Laborer (Engineering Construction)” (Group 2 or equivalent) classification, which carries significantly higher wage rates.

After investigation, the DLSE issued assessments totaling $47,280.18 ($36,626.30 for Torrey Pines Road and $10,653.88 for Voltaire Street), comprising unpaid prevailing wages, apprenticeship training fund contributions, section 1775 penalties at $120 per violation (found justified due to willful violations and absence of good-faith mistake), and section 1777.7 apprenticeship penalties.

Following an unsuccessful administrative review on stipulated facts before the Director of Industrial Relations, Anton’s sought writ relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The superior court (Hon. Wendy M. Behan) denied the petition.

On appeal, Anton’s challenged the findings of worker misclassification, the imposition and amount of section 1775 penalties, liability for liquidated damages under section 1742.1, and the apprenticeship violations and related penalties.

The Court of Appeal rejected each contention and affirmed the trial court in the published case of Anton’s Services v. Hagen -D084833 (November 2025).

Substantial evidence supported the Director’s finding that the work was construction or incidental to construction and therefore outside the Tree Maintenance classification, which explicitly excludes “any work of any employee performing construction or landscape construction work (including work incidental to construction…).” Tree trimming performed to enable continuation of soil-nail wall and sidewalk construction was incidental to the public works project, not separate non-prevailing-wage tree maintenance.

The section 1775 penalties at $120 per violation were not an abuse of discretion; Anton’s failed to meet its burden to show good faith mistake or prompt voluntary correction, and the violations were properly deemed willful. Liquidated damages under Labor Code § 1742.1 were correctly imposed because Anton’s neither paid the unpaid wages nor deposited the full amount of the assessments into escrow with the Department of Industrial Relations within 60 days of service.

Apprenticeship violations on the Torrey Pines Road Project were established: Anton’s failed to submit DAS 140/142 contract award information to the applicable apprenticeship committee prior to commencement of work and failed to request dispatch of apprentices, violating Labor Code § 1777.5 and title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 230.1(a). The resulting section 1777.7 penalties were upheld.