On April 22, 2024, California’s highest court ruled that detainees held in local jails have no right to receive minimum wage—or any wages—for their labor.

The case arose when pretrial detainees at the Santa Rita Jail filed a class-action suit against Alameda County in federal court for the Northern District of California in 2019. They prepared meals for Aramark Correctional Services LLC under its $19 million contract with the County, but cried foul when they received no pay. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was partially denied, so they filed an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The appellate court, in turn, submitted a certified question of state law to the California Supreme Court: Do pretrial detainees performing work in county jails “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 such wages?” See: Ruelas v. Cty. of Alameda, 51 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022).

To answer that, the Supreme Court considered “the interplay between the Penal Code, the Labor Code, and the constitutional provisions governing public-private contracts for inmate labor.” Per Penal Code§ 4019.3, a county may provide wages to jail detainees “not to exceed two dollars ($2) for each eight hours of work”—i.e., up to $.25/hour. That rate, the Court noted, had not changed since 1975. But it found that § 4019.3 controlled, since it applies to all detainees held in local jails, convicted or not. “Counties therefore may—but are not required to—credit inmates … up to two dollars per eight-hour shift, notwithstanding the legal minimum wage, which is much higher,” the Court wrote.

Plaintiffs argued that § 4019.3 does not apply to prisoners participating in public­ private work programs like the county’s contract with Aramark. That argument was rejected though, and the Supreme Court concluded that all work performed at the jail, whether for the county or a private contractor, was subject to§ 4019.3. In fact, the Court explained the law “does not ensure county jail inmates working in the county jail will be paid anything at all.”

Nor did the Prison Inmate Labor Initiative of 1990 (Prop. 139) impose an obligation on counties or private companies to comply with minimum wage requirements under the state’s Labor Code. The Court noted that Prop. 139 applies only to state prisoners, not detainees in local jails. Plaintiffs pointed out how absurd it is that convicted prisoners, who can be forced to work, “must” be paid wages comparable to non-incarcerated workers for their labor in public-private partnerships, while non-convicted pretrial detainees “who cannot be forced to work, may be paid nothing.”

Though not dismissing that argument, the Court answered the Ninth Circuit’s certified question of law by holding that pretrial detainees “performing services in county jails for a for-profit company … do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime” under § 1194 of the Labor Code. In a footnote, the Court clarified its decision did not address the separate issue of detainees who perform work for a private company outside a local jail.

“The California Supreme Court recognized the severe economic burdens the people incarcerated in county jails face from an exploitive system,” said Senior Staff Attorney Kyle Virgien of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “It’s now up to Alameda County to do the right thing and ensure that when corporations profit from the labor of people incarcerated in the Alameda County Jail, they pay for that labor.”

Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys with Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta in Oakland. Amici briefs in support of the class were filed by over a dozen organizations, including the ACLU, Prison Law Office, Prison Policy Initiative, Worth Rises, National Employment Law Project, California Employment Lawyers Association and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. See: Ruelas v. Cty. of Alameda, 15 Cal.5th 968 (Cal. 2024).

Following the ruling, on July 26, 2024, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order which had partially denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, saying that the Court’s answer to the certified question made it clear that the wage-related claims must fail. See: Ruelas v. County of Alameda, 108 F.4th 1208 (9th Cir. 2024).  

Additional sources: Courthouse News, ACLU