ADJ10011064 · December 30, 2022

The Board found that the inmates were employees of the County of Fresno because they received extra visitation rights as consideration, which constituted sufficient consideration to support an employment relationship under existing case law.

From the decision · page 17In applying the compulsory test above using the Rowland factors, we conclude that applicants' work here were voluntary. Preliminarily, we note that the parties here have not offered into evidence, nor have we found, a county ordinance that addresses the employment status of county inmates. As such, following the court in Pruitt, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d at pp. 552-553, and Parsons, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at pp. 638-639, above, we focus our analysis on the relationship between the inmates and the county.

Inmates received extra visitation rights in the blue unit, which was not available in the red unit.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This was considered sufficient consideration to establish an employment relationship under workers' compensation law.

From the decision · page 21received from the city was a weekly carton of cigarettes. (Id. at pp. 552-553.) This nominal consideration was sufficient to uphold an employee status against the city. It did not matter whether the inmate was a smoker or made use of the cigarettes. The court in Parsons, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 639, held that the inmate received no consideration other than what he would have received had he served his time in jail, i.e., food and clothing. Here, unlike in Parsons, the inmates in the blue unit received extra visitation rights, something that inmates in the red unit did not receive. (See Laeng v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 771 [person injured while applying for a job and submitting to a tryout consisting of an agility test was deemed an employee for purposes of workers' compensation benefits even though he was not yet hired and did not yet receive compensation].) Therefore, although the extra visitation rights may not have been of much value to some of the inmates, they are sufficient consideration and support our conclusion that the inmates here were employees of the County.

Inmates testified they were ordered to work against their will and feared retribution if they refused.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the finding that the work was compulsory but did not negate the employment relationship due to the consideration received.

Pruitt v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1960) 261 Cal.App.2d 549

An inmate can be considered an employee under workers' compensation law if there is a relationship of master and servant and an implied contract of hire, even if no monetary wages are paid, as long as there is some form of consideration.

The Board applied this standard to find that the inmates were employees because they received extra visitation rights as consideration.

From the decision · page 17In applying the compulsory test above using the Rowland factors, we conclude that applicants' work here were voluntary. Preliminarily, we note that the parties here have not offered into evidence, nor have we found, a county ordinance that addresses the employment status of county inmates. As such, following the court in Pruitt, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d at pp. 552-553, and Parsons, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at pp. 638-639, above, we focus our analysis on the relationship between the inmates and the county.

Testimony of inmates that they were ordered to work against their will and feared retribution if they refused

Testimony that inmates received extra visitation rights in the blue unit, which was not available in the red unit

From the decision · page 21received from the city was a weekly carton of cigarettes. (Id. at pp. 552-553.) This nominal consideration was sufficient to uphold an employee status against the city. It did not matter whether the inmate was a smoker or made use of the cigarettes. The court in Parsons, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 639, held that the inmate received no consideration other than what he would have received had he served his time in jail, i.e., food and clothing. Here, unlike in Parsons, the inmates in the blue unit received extra visitation rights, something that inmates in the red unit did not receive. (See Laeng v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 771 [person injured while applying for a job and submitting to a tryout consisting of an agility test was deemed an employee for purposes of workers' compensation benefits even though he was not yet hired and did not yet receive compensation].) Therefore, although the extra visitation rights may not have been of much value to some of the inmates, they are sufficient consideration and support our conclusion that the inmates here were employees of the County.