Randell Johnson vs. Arvin-Edison Water Storage District
Filed 6/3/09
Fifth Appellate District
Cite as F056201

Water District Employees Exempt From Overtime and Meal Breaks

A class action suit was filed by Randell Johnson against Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (District) for non-payment of overtime and for not providing meal breaks to him and the former and current District employees in accordance with the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders.

Arvin-Edison is a water storage district in 1942 under Water Code section 39000 et seq., and has been designated as a “public agency of the State of California.” Thus, defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that, as a public entity, it is exempt from the subject wage and hour statutes.

The trial court agreed with the District and sustained the demurrer.

On appeal, Johnson argued the following points:

• Public employers are subject to the California wage and hour provisions at issue unless they are expressly made exempt.
  
  According to appellant, under statutory construction rules, it is evident that the Legislature intended that water storage districts provide their employees with overtime and meal periods as required by Labor Code1 sections 510 and 512, and IWC Wage Order No. 17.


• Abovementioned Labor Code requirements will not infringe on the execution of the District’s sovereign powers.


• The District is required to immediately pay wages due upon an employee’s termination or resignation under sections 201 and 202 and is subject to penalties for failure to do so under section 203.


• Although “other municipal corporations” are exempt from these requirements under section 220, subdivision (b), the District does not qualify as such.

The Appellate Court however, affirmed the Trail Court’s decision and said that it was correct in sustaining the demurrer.

The CA ruled that Labor Code provisions only apply to employers in the private sector unless it is specifically made applicable to public employers. It also held that sections 510 and 512 do not expressly apply to public entities, hence, they are not applicable.

Further, it ruled that applying sections 510 and 512 to the District would infringe on its sovereign power to regulate its workforce. IWC Wage Order No. 17 was also held inapplicable to this case. Finally, the District is a “municipal corporation” and, therefore, is exempt from sections 201, 202, and 203.