In a compelling legal battle, employees of the State of California who provide dental care to inmates have taken on their employer over unpaid work-related activities. The complaint was filed by Azeem Bath and others in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, against the State of California and associated entities on September 25, 2024.
The plaintiffs, including Azeem Bath, Megan Roberts, and Makisha Bomar, are hourly-paid employees working at a state prison. They allege that they were not compensated for time spent on mandatory pre- and post-shift activities such as security checks and equipment handling. These activities are argued to be integral to their roles in maintaining safety within the prison environment. The case revolves around whether these activities fall under compensable work according to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its Portal-to-Portal Act amendment.
The trial court initially sided with the defendants by sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, citing that these activities were not compensable under federal law. However, the plaintiffs argue that their wage claims are valid and that the trial court improperly resolved factual disputes at this stage. They contend that providing security is a principal activity tied to their employment duties. The defendants countered with several defenses: asserting that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) precludes such claims; arguing statutory exemptions for government employers; claiming failure by plaintiffs to exhaust contractual remedies; and invoking statute limitations.
The appellate court found merit in some of the plaintiffs' arguments. It agreed that questions regarding whether security provision is part of their principal duties should not have been dismissed outright at this stage. However, it also upheld parts of the lower court's decision based on specific legislative enactments related to MOUs which supersede general state wage laws. Thus, while statutory claims were deemed invalid under current legislation, breach of contract claims could proceed as they might align with terms set forth in the MOU.
The plaintiffs seek judicial recognition for their unpaid labor through damages or other reliefs deemed appropriate by the court. Their appeal aims to establish that these preparatory tasks are indeed essential job functions deserving compensation.
Representing this complex case are attorneys from both sides: no specific names were mentioned for either party's legal representatives within this document excerpt. The presiding judges include Miller J., Richman Acting P.J., and Desautels J., with Case ID A167908 marking this significant dispute between state employees and their governmental employer.