Dimon v. County of Los Angeles
Filed September 16, 2008
Fourth District Court of Appeals
Cite as B202409

County’s Exemption Right in Employee’s Compensation for Missed Meals Affirmed

The case stemmed from a complaint filed a deputy probation officer against the County of Los Angeles (the County) for violations of various provisions of the Labor Code, as well as Wage Orders promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC).

According to Vi Dimon, the County failed to provide deputy probation officers with meal periods and failed to pay for the missed meal periods.

In her first amended complaint, she brings this action on behalf of all current and former county probation officers who were not provided "with lawful meal periods" and "not paid the hour of pay for each meal period not provided." She alleged that the County's actions violated Labor Code sections 512 fn. 2 (prescribing meal periods) and 226.7 fn. 3 (providing a premium wage as compensation for missed meal periods) as well as (unspecified) wage orders promulgated by the IWC. The complaint seeks monetary damages and recovery of civil penalties.

The County filed for a demurrer to the complaint contending that, as a charter county, it has exclusive authority to provide for the compensation and conditions of employment of its employees. In particular, it noted that it had regulated compensation and employment conditions through a collective bargaining agreement, which, among other things, contained an express provision governing meal periods for deputy probation officers.

The trial court sustained the County's demurrer without leave to amend. The trial court found that the County, as a charter county, has exclusive authority to provide for the compensation and conditions of employment of its employees and therefore is exempt from the requirements of sections 226.7 and 512.

During review, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court. It held that the County has exclusive authority, as a charter county, to provide for the compensation and conditions of employment of its employees, and has done so with respect to probation officers through a collective bargaining agreement adopted by resolution. The court ruled that the County is therefore exempt from state statutes and regulations governing meal breaks.

In upholding this decision, the appeals court cited a January 2006 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into by the County and the union representing deputy probation workers covers the subject of meal periods.

The pertinent provision of the MOU refers to section 7 of Article 38, entitled "Meal Time Coverage," which provides that "when Field Services personnel are assigned to duties of Officer-of-the Day, such employees will be relieved from that duty for their lunch period. Relief will be provided by Management” This includes Camp and Juvenile Hall employees who “will be provided with meals if no meal time relief can be provided during the period of their working hours."

The Fourth District Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the decision of the district court, which held that the County has exclusive authority to grant compensation and conditions of employment of its employees and therefore is exempt from the requirements of sections 226.7 and 512