Charter County Employees Not Covered by Meal and Rest Period Rules

January 13, 2009 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine

California’s First Appellate District ruled that meal and rest break claims under Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7 cannot be asserted against a charter county. Curcini v. County of Alameda (2008) 164 Cal.App. 4th 629.

The California Constitution provides charter counties with the right to determine compensation of their employees, a right that is not subject to legislative interference. The county employees contended that meal and rest break claims relate to “working conditions” and not “compensation.”

But the court deemed the meal and rest break rules to regulate employee compensation. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court’s Kenneth Cole decision – which ruled damages for failing to provide meal breaks are properly classified as wages and not penalties – and the traditionally broad interpretation of the term “compensation” required a finding that the charter county is not subject to these labor code provisions.

Although the Curcini court did not address charter cities, the court’s analysis would appear to apply equally to charter cities.

The Curcini court also did not address the application of state meal and rest period statutes to general law counties, but it is not clear whether these statutes apply to general law counties.

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.