Trial lawyers can't sue California counties and correctional services vendors on behalf of inmates who are being held pending trial, demanding those inmates be paid minimum wage for work they perform in jail kitchens, the California Supreme Court says.
On April 22, the state high court ruled unanimously that the state's labor laws which apply to ordinary employers don't apply to those being held in jail, even if they have not yet been convicted of any crimes.
The decision likely deals a potentially mortal blow to a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of people who are or have been incarcertated in the Alameda County Santa Rita Jail and worked in the jail kitchens under an agreement between vendor Aramark and Alameda County.
The lawsuit, filed in 2019, noted that California's minimum wage and overtime rules don't apply to people who have been convicted for crimes and sentenced to prison terms in a state penitentiary. A separate state law governs any potential pay they may receive for work performed in prison on behalf of a services vendor under a private-public partnership agreement.
However, the lawsuit claimed that state law doen't not expressly apply to those held in county jails, or to those who have not been convicted and are being held in jail pending trial. So, they said, Aramark and Alameda County have an obligation under California labor laws to pay pre-trial inmates minimum wage and overtime.
A federal judge sided with the inmates on the minimum wage question, saying the legal silence on the status of nonconvicted pre-trial detainees means the minimum wage rules should still apply to them. However, the judge sent to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a so-called interlocutory appeal - or an appeal that seeks an answer to a specific legal question - on the question of whether the competing California laws actually allow for such a finding.
The Ninth Circuit, however, punted, instead asking the California Supreme Court to answer the question.
The state Supreme Court said the federal district judge answered the question incorrectly.
The justices said the state's penal code applies to everyone held in county jails, whether or not they have yet been convicted of a crime. Under that section of the law, known as Section 4019.3, inmates in county jails can earn "wage credits" of $2 for every eight hours of work performed in the jail, an amount unchanged since 1975.
Plaintiffs argued that provision didn't apply in this case, because the inmates work under a "private-public partnership," rather than directly for the county. Further, they assert such "partnerships" were prohibited at the time the law was enacted.
But the justices said that distinction doesn't matter under the law as it is currently written, and that state law has never been repealed or superseded, by either a law approved by the legislature or a ballot proposition approved by voters. They noted that California voters specifically addressed inmate work conditions and pay levels through Proposition 139, adopted in 1990. But that measure did not upset Section 4019.3, either.
The justices said nothing in California law requires prison officials to pay inmates working in the jail anything, much less minimum wage.
"Plaintiffs argue that in the absence of a local ordinance, the Labor Code necessarily applies," the justice wrote. "But they fail to grapple with Section 4019.3, which sets a specific wage range, well below the state minimum, for convicted and nonconvicted inmates working in a county jail.
"Notably, plaintiffs do not argue that Proposition 139 displaced section 4019.3, and we would not lightly adopt such a construction."
The justices noted the policy considerations and concerns raised by the attorneys and advocates on both sides of the question, including concerns over the treatment of people held in jail who aren't convicted, and the possible impact on public finances and jail operations - as well as inmate work opportunities - should counties be forced to pay certain inmates minimum wage.
But the justices said those concerns belong to lawmakers, not the courts.
The unanimous decision was authored by Justice Kelli Evans.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Dan Siegel, Anne Butterfield Weills, EmilyRose Johns and Sara Beladi, of the firm of Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta, of Oakland.
Alameda County was represented by attorneys Paul B. Mello, Adam W. Hofmann, Samantha D. Wolff, Gilbert J. Tsai, Winston K. Hu and Gary A. Watt, of the firm of Hanson Bridgett, of San Francisco.
Aramark Correctional Services was represented by attorneys Cortlin H. Lannin, Isaac D. Chaput, Adam Z. Margulies, Eric C. Bosset and Kevin F. King, of the firm of Covington & Burling, of Washington, D.C.
The case drew amicus, or friend of the court briefs, from a range of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), siding with the plaintiffs; and the California State Association of Counties and the California State Sheriffs’ Association, filing in support of Alameda County.