State high court bars most claims by prison employees for extra pay

The state Supreme Court on Monday barred the majority of claims brought by a class of California prison employees, who sought compensation for time spent getting to and leaving their work posts.

The complex, protracted labor suit spanning more than a decade entails two broad groups of plaintiffs: roughly 35,000 rank-and-file employees united within a labor organization, the California Correctional Peace Officer Association, and a second group of about 5,000 supervisors, whose compensation was not collectively bargained but rather defined by California's Department of Human Resource's Pay Scale Manual.

Both groups argued that state labor regulations, in particular a wage order from 2001 requiring employees be paid at least minimum wage for "all hours worked," meant the plaintiffs were owed compensation for the time they spent getting from a facility's "outermost gate," to their respective work stations.

A five-justice majority disagreed. As to the rank-and-file employees (whom the court referred to as "represented," by virtue of their union organization), the court reasoned that a memorandum of understanding between them and the state stipulating a prescribed compensation amount for "pre and post work activities" governed the dispute.

"The collective bargaining agreements that memorialized this agreement all provided that they constituted the entire understanding of the parties concerning matters contained therein," Justice Ming Chin wrote for the majority. Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human Resources, 2019 DJDAR 6111 (Cal. July 1, 2019).

The court left some hope for the cohort of supervisor plaintiffs, finding that a portion of their to-and-from time may be compensable, though only that amount occurring after the employees pick up their equipment, which the court referred to as "duty-integrated walk time."

"The Pay Scale Manual defines compensable work time for purposes of calculating an employee's right to regular and overtime compensation, and duty-integrated walk time falls squarely within that definition," Chin concluded.

Two dissenting justices felt the majority construed state wage guarantees too narrowly.

"Our longstanding rule that we interpret state wage and hour laws to promote employee protection compels me to dissent from those portions of today's opinion," wrote Goodwin Liu, who was joined by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar.

Gregg McLean Adam, founding partner with Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, echoed the dissenters' concern.

"As the dissent acknowledges this opinion goes out of its way to undermine state employee protections," Adam said in an interview Monday. "It's quite staggering."

Gary G. Goyette, head of the civil litigation department at Goyette & Associates who represented many of the supervisor plaintiffs in the matter, expressed optimism as to the portion of the case that will now go forward.

"It's not a home run, but it's a good result for the [supervisors] because the time described, the [duty-integrated walk time] is really paid time on the clock," Goyette said. "It's about as sound of an argument as you can get."

Representatives for the state did not return inquiries by press time.