Ruelas v. Cty. of Alameda

320 Cal.Rptr.3d 290

546 P.3d 556

Armida RUELAS, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

S277120

Supreme Court of California.

April 22, 2024

Ninth Circuit, 21-16528, Northern District of California, 4:19-cv-07687-JST

Covington & Burling, Cortlin H. Lannin, San Francisco, Isaac D. Chaput, Adam Z. Margulies, Eric C. Bosset and Kevin F. King for Defendant and Appellant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC.

Hanson Bridgett, Paul B. Mello, Gilbert J. Tsai, Winston K. Hu, Gary A. Watt, San Francisco, Adam W. Hofmann, Sacramen- to, Samantha D. Wolff, Walnut Creek, for Defendants and Appellants County of Alameda and Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern.

Jennifer Bacon Henning for California State Association of Counties and California State Sheriffs’ Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta, Dan Siegel, Anne Butterfield Weills, EmilyRose Johns, Oakland, and Sara Beladi for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Kyle Virgien; Summer Lacey, Los Angeles; and Shilpi Agarwal for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, Fines and Fees Justice Center, Prison Law Office, Prison Policy Initiative, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center and Worth Rises as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Bradan Litzinger, Molly Lao and Sabina Crocette, Oakland, for Legal Aid at Work, California Employment Lawyers Association, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Impact Fund, National Employment Law Project and Root & Rebound as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Kellie Walters for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Opinion of the Court by Evans, J.

Inmates at the Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County work in the kitchen preparing meals for the county jail population and staff under an agreement between the county and a private contractor. They are not paid for their labor. A group of non-convicted individuals who were performing this labor while detained at the jail sued the county and the private contractor in federal court for failing to pay minimum wage and overtime. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has asked us to decide whether nonconvicted incarcerated individuals working in a county jail for a private company have a claim for minimum wage and overtime under California law. We conclude the answer is no.

I. Background

Because this matter arises from an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 12(b)(6) (28 U.S.C.), we recite the facts as alleged in the operative complaint. We treat the factual allegations as true for the purpose of addressing the certified question. (See Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 993, 1004, 310 Cal.Rptr.3d 97, 531 P.3d 924.)

Under a contract with defendant Alameda County, defendant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC (Aramark) has undertaken the responsibility for operating the food service program and delivery of meals for inmates and staff at all Alameda County Sheriff’s Office facilities and satellite facilities. Satellite facilities include county jails located elsewhere in the state. Aramark, a private, for-profit company, provides the contracted-for food services using the industrial kitchen at the Santa Rita Jail. Jail inmates prepare and package the food in the industrial kitchen each day and clean and sanitize the kitchen after the conclusion of the day’s food preparation.

Plaintiffs Armida Ruelas et al. are or were pretrial or other nonconvicted detainees confined at Santa Rita Jail who either prepared and packaged food or cleaned and sanitized the kitchen for Aramark. No party has suggested the analysis turns on the basis for the nonconvicted detainees’ detention, so we refer generally in this opinion to pretrial detainees. Sometimes plaintiffs work in excess of eight hours a day or 40 hours a week, six or seven days a week. Nonetheless, plaintiffs are not paid any wages for their work on Aramark’s behalf.

On November 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal district court against the County of Alameda, Alameda County Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern (together, the County), and Aramark on behalf of themselves and the class of Santa Rita Jail inmates who perform services for Aramark under its contract with the County. After the district court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint limited to themselves and other nonconvicted detainees. The amended complaint asserted nine causes of action, including causes of action for minimum and overtime wages. The district court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the causes of action for minimum and overtime wages. The court reasoned that "while the Penal Code explicitly addresses employment and wages of state prisoners, both in relation to the minimum wage [see Pen. Code, § 2811] and in the context of incarcerated individuals working for a private company through a joint venture program [see Pen. Code, § 2717.8], the Penal Code does not address such matters for pretrial detainees confined in county jails …. Similarly, although the Penal Code authorizes ‘the board of supervisors or city council’ to require ‘[a]ll persons confined in the county jail … under a final judgment of imprisonment rendered in a criminal action or proceeding to perform labor on the public works or ways in the county or city,’ there is no similar provision regarding non-convicted incarcerated persons. [Citation.] The Court reads these omissions to imply that the California legislature did not intend to exclude non-convicted detainees working for a private corporation from the Labor Code’s protections." The court did, however, agree with the County that government entities "are exempt from state overtime laws" and therefore granted the County’s motion to dismiss the claim for overtime wages.

In a simultaneously filed order, the district court certified for interlocutory appeal the legal question of pretrial detainees’ entitlement to minimum and overtime wages. The Ninth Circuit accepted the appeal and then certified the following question of state law to this court (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548(b)(2)): "Do nonconvicted incarcerated individuals performing services in county jails for a for-profit company to supply meals within the county jails and related custody facilities have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under Section 1194 of the California Labor Code in the absence of any local ordinance prescribing or prohibiting the payment of wages for these individuals?" (Rudas v. County of Alameda (9th Cir. 2022) 51 F.4th 1187, 1188.) On January 11, 2023, we agreed to answer the certified question.¹

II. Discussion

To determine whether pretrial detainees working in county jails for private companies are entitled to minimum wage,² we examine the interplay among the Penal Code, the Labor Code, and the constitutional provisions governing public-private contracts for inmate labor. We conclude that such individuals do not have a claim for minimum wage under the Labor Code.

Aramark and the County begin with Penal Code section 4019.3 (all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise specified), which creates a discretionary scheme for the payment of wage credits to county jail inmates, subject to a cap: "The board of supervisors may provide that each prisoner confined in or committed to a county jail shall be credited with a sum not to exceed two dollars ($2) for each eight hours of work done by him in such county jail." This wage credit, which has remained unchanged since 1975, is far below the state minimum wage for other workers. (See Lab. Code, § 1182.12.)

Defendants argue, and we agree, that section 4019.3 applies broadly to all county inmates, including pretrial detainees, working in the county jail. The federal district court was therefore mistaken in asserting that the Penal Code "does not address" wages for "pretrial detainees confined in county jails."

[1] By its terms, section 4019.3 encompasses all prisoners "confined in or committed to" a county jail. We also note the broad construction accorded similar language — a prisoner "confined in or committed to a county jail" — in nearby section 4019 to describe who is eligible for custody and worktime credits. (§ 4019, subds. (a)(1)-(3), (b), (c); see also id., § 4000, subd. 2 [authorizing county jails to be used for detaining persons charged with a crime and "committed for trial"].) We have construed this language to include not only those who are serving a sentence in county jail, but also those who have merely been detained following an arrest as well as those who have been convicted but not yet sentenced. (See People v. Dieck (2009) 46 Cal.4th 934, 938–939 & fn. 2, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 408, 209 P.3d 623.) Because sections 4019 and 4019.3 deal " ‘with the same subject matter’ " — i.e., the class of county jail inmates who are eligible for an important benefit — the category of inmates confined in or committed to a county jail "should be accorded the same interpretation" in both instances. (See Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 158, 175, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 483 P.3d 144 (Kaanaana).)

[2] An Attorney General opinion, which is entitled to "considerable weight" (Lexin v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1087, fn. 17, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 767, 222 P.3d 214), reached the same conclusion nearly 50 years ago. (57 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 276, 283 (1974).) As the Attorney General then noted, the Legislature enacted section 4019.3 to equalize the wage credits for inmates working in jail with those already authorized by section 4125 for individuals working at industrial farms or...