Invisible No More

PART-TIME FACULTY, UNPAID LABOR, AND THE PUSH FOR EQUITY AFTER ROBERTS V. LBCCD

By Crystal Huckabee, Ed.D. (c)

Part-time faculty are the backbone of California’s community college system. We teach the same courses as full-time faculty, outnumber them, support the most vulnerable student populations, and carry out the daily work of instruction. Yet for decades, our compensation has been built on a fiction: that teaching happens only in the classroom.

The recent case Roberts v. LBCCD forces us to confront that fiction—and its consequences.

The Myth of “Contact Hours”

In most California community college districts, part-time faculty are paid according to teaching units or contact hours. On paper, this appears straightforward: faculty are compensated for time spent delivering instruction in the classroom. In practice, however, this model obscures the reality of academic labor.

Teaching is not limited to lecturing in the classroom. The work we as part-time faculty are not paid for: course design, syllabus construction, assignment creation, grading, student communication, student mentorship, learning management system maintenance, accessibility compliance, office hours, and curriculum updates.

These are not optional tasks. They are required, evaluated, and essential to student success. Yet under the traditional compensation model, much of this labor remains unpaid since it is conducted outside of the classroom. Make no mistake, full-time faculty are paid for this labor. It is only part-time faculty that must work for no pay. 

The Roberts case makes this contradiction explicit.

What the Court Recognized

In its 2025 ruling, the Los Angeles County Superior Court acknowledged what part-time faculty have long known: part-time instructors are required to perform significant work outside the classroom in order to adequately conduct their courses, and institutions are aware of it.

Under California law, employees must be compensated for all hours worked—defined as time during which an employer “suffers or permits” work to occur. Since districts evaluate part-time faculty based on out-of-class responsibilities, the court found that this labor cannot be ignored or excluded from compensation.

This represents a critical shift in how academic labor is recognized and valued. It reframes part-time labor not as supplemental, but as comprehensive and measurable.

Why This Matters Beyond One District

Although this case centers on LBCCD part-time faculty, its implications extend across the California Community College system.

For decades, part-time faculty labor has been structured around systemic inequality: part-time faculty have the same qualifications as full-time faculty, but are not compensated equally for teaching the same classes.

The Roberts decision disrupts long-standing norms by applying existing labor law to academic work. It does not create new rights—it exposes that part-time faculty have always been entitled to protections that institutions have long denied.

The Role of Collective Action

This did not emerge in a vacuum. It reflects years of organizing, advocacy, and coalition-building among part-time faculty.

Recent gains associated with this movement include LBCCD’s acknowledgment of the full scope of work performed by part-time faculty, increased salary parity with full-time faculty (still only at 51%), union-led contract negotiations resulting in retroactive pay, and a landmark $18 million settlement providing back pay for more than 1,450 part-time faculty.

These outcomes demonstrate a key lesson: legal victories are strongest when paired with collective action. The courtroom can recognize injustice, but it is organizing that transforms recognition into sustained change.

Structural Inequity in Higher Education

At its core, this issue is about more than wages—it is about how institutions define the value of faculty. The current system depends on a two-tier faculty structure: full-time faculty are compensated for the full scope of their labor, while part-time faculty are paid for only a fraction of theirs. This inequity persists despite comparable qualifications and contributions to student learning. What emerges is a system sustained by invisible labor—essential, unrecognized work carried on the backs of part-time faculty.

What Comes Next

As of 2026, the case is moving through the settlement process, with a preliminary approval hearing scheduled for July. If approved, eligible faculty may finally receive compensation for past unpaid labor. But the larger impact of this case will not be measured solely in settlement checks. Its true significance lies in the shift it represents:

• From invisibility to recognition
• From status quo to accountability
• From isolated grievances to systemic critique

For too long, part-time faculty have been asked to do more with less—to carry out the full responsibilities of teaching while being compensated for only part of the work.

The Roberts case challenges this imbalance by insisting on a simple principle:

If the work is required, it must be paid.

For part-time faculty across California, this is not just a legal argument. It is a statement of dignity, professional recognition, and the value of the work we do every day.

---

Tags: LBCCD, part-time employees, part-time faculty, Roberts v. LBCCD, unpaid labor