Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human Resources

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

KURT STOETZL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES et al., Defendants and Respondents.

S244751

First Appellate District, Division Four A142832

San Francisco City and County Superior Court CJC11004661

July 1, 2019

Justice Chin authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Kruger, and Groban concurred.

Justice Liu filed a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Justice Cuéllar concurred.

STOETZL v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES S244751

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

In this case, we decide whether a certified class of state correctional employees is entitled to additional compensation for time spent on pre- and postwork activities, including traveling from the outermost gate of the prison facility to their work posts within the facility, traveling back from their work posts to the outermost gate, being briefed before the start of a shift, briefing relief staff at the end of a shift, checking out and checking back in mandated safety equipment, putting on and removing such equipment, and submitting to searches at various security checkpoints within the facility. For convenience, we will refer to the time spent doing these pre- and postwork activities as “walk time” although we recognize that walk time includes many activities besides merely walking to and from a work post. There are two types of walk time that are relevant here. The first is the time a correctional employee spends after arriving at a prison’s outermost gate but before beginning the first activity the employee is employed to perform (plus analogous time at the end of the employee’s work shift). We will call this type of walk time “entry-exit walk time.” The second is the time a correctional employee spends after beginning the first activity the employee is employed to perform but before the employee arrives at his or her assigned work post (plus analogous time at

1

STOETZL v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

the end of the employee’s work shift). We will call this type of walk time “duty-integrated walk time.”1 The trial court divided the plaintiff class into two subclasses, one for supervisory employees who were not represented by a union during the time period set forth in the class certification and the other for represented employees. We conclude that the subclass of represented plaintiffs expressly agreed, by way of the collective bargaining process, to a specific amount of compensation for duty-integrated walk time, and there is no allegation that the state failed to pay the agreed- upon amount. Moreover, the collective bargaining agreements that memorialized this agreement all provided that they constituted the entire understanding of the parties concerning matters contained therein, and thus they precluded other forms of compensation, such as compensation for entry-exit walk time. These agreements were approved by the Legislature, and each approval was signed by the Governor and chaptered into law, thus becoming specific legislation applicable to the represented plaintiffs and superseding more general laws to the extent of any conflict. Therefore, the represented plaintiffs’ claims fail insofar as they seek additional compensation for either duty- integrated walk time or entry-exit walk time. As to the subclass of unrepresented plaintiffs, we conclude that they may be entitled to additional compensation for duty-