In 2022, the California Legislature added Labor Code section 512.1 to extend the meal and rest break rights that private sector health care workers have to public sector health care employees who are directly employed by: the state, political subdivisions of the state, counties, municipalities, and the Regents of the University of California.
A group of nurses who worked for the City and County of San Francisco (City) sued on behalf of themselves and similarly situated City-employed nurses. The nurses alleged that the City has failed to comply with section 512.1 since it took effect. The City is a charter city.
The City demurred on two grounds. First, the City argued that section 512.1 did not apply to charter cities. Second, the City argued that even if the Legislature had meant to apply section 512.1 to charter cities, the law would violate the constitutional home rule doctrine because the law “does not pertain to a matter of statewide concern” and “is not narrowly tailored to its purported goals.” The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend. The court found no clear indication that the Legislature intended section 512.1 to apply to charter cities. The nurses appealed.
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the sustaining of the City’s demurrer. The nurses argued that charter cities came within section 512.1’s broad definition of “employer.” The Court disagreed. The Court of Appeal found that none of the other aids to statutory interpretation supported the nurses’ argument. For example, the Court noted that in other statutes, the Legislature expressly stated both that a matter was of statewide concern and was not a “municipal affair” as that term is used in the “home rule” doctrine stated in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. The Court found that section 512.1 did not expressly apply this statute to charter cities.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the City’s home rule authority gave it sovereignty over its employees’ compensation. The Court declined to address constitutional home rule questions because the statutory grounds were available and dispositive. The Court declined to infer any legislative intent from section 512.1 to contravene the City’s constitutional home rule authority.
Levy v. City and County of San Francisco, 114 Cal.App.5th 997 (2025).