California Supreme Court rules that county jail kitchen workers can go unpaid

(CN) — The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that county jail inmates are not entitled to be paid minimum wage and overtime — or any pay at all, even when doing work for a private contractor.

The law, the justices found, "does not ensure county jail inmates working in the county jail will be paid anything at all."

The case was brought by a group of inmates working in an industrial kitchen at Santa Rita Jail in Northern California. The inmates work without pay for Aramark, a for-profit private contractor, preparing and packaging meals for all Alameda County Sheriff's Department facilities and satellite offices and out-of-county jails under a $19 million contract with the county. The work is voluntary, with detainees who work able to receive time credits taken off their sentences if they are convicted — and no benefit if they are not convicted).

"We have a situation that is unregulated," the inmates' attorney Dan Siegel told the state Supreme Court during oral arguments in February. "These inmates, who haven't been convicted of any crime and who are incarcerated because they can't afford to pay bail, are simply moved around as tokens."

California law expressly addresses employment and wage rules for state prison inmates, who have already been convicted of crimes. They must be paid a prevailing wage, but up to 80% of their wages can be withheld to mitigate the cost of their incarceration and to compensate crime victims and their families.

As for county inmates, including those who have yet to be tried, section 4019.3 of the California Penal Code caps their pay at $2 for eight hours of work, a maximum that has gone unchanged since 1975. There is no provision saying they must be paid, even if they work for private for-profit contractors.

Santa Rita Jail kitchen workers filed a federal class action in 2019. In 2021, a federal judge allowed those claims to proceed. Aramark and Alameda County appealed. The Ninth Circuit then asked the state Supreme Court to weigh in: “Do non-convicted 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?”

The plaintiffs argued the $2-per-eight-hours cap is inapplicable when inmates work for private contractors. But the Supreme Court disagreed.

"While there may be sound policy reasons for and against such a distinction, no such limitation appears in the statutory text," wrote Associate Justice Kelli Evans, appointed by Governor Gavin Newson in 2023, in the opinion,

The plaintiffs also pointed out the strangeness of offering wage protections to inmates who have been convicted of a crime, but not to detainees awaiting trial. They also argued detention causes arrestees to lose income and often their jobs.

"We acknowledge the policy concerns raised by the parties," Evans wrote. "Under the law as it currently stands, however, we conclude that nonconvicted incarcerated individuals performing services in county jails for a for-profit company to supply meals within the county jails and related custody facilities do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime."

She added: "The Legislature can, if it sees fit, adjust its approach to the payment of wages or wage credits for those awaiting adjudication of their cases as well as for convicted persons."

The ruling allows the county boards of supervisors to set wages for county inmates, though they must adhere to the $2 cap.

Follow @hillelaron

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit