Vasquez

Vasquez v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Bad Law
105 Cal. App. 4th 849·129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 110·2003 Daily Journal DAR 1015·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 846
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 27, 2003D038889California2,771 words

Opinion

Opinion

McCONNELL, J.

Plaintiff Cristina Vasquez appeals a judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of defendants the State of California and Noreen Blonien (together the State when appropriate). We reverse the judgment and hold, as a matter of first impression, that a taxpayer action (Code Civ. Proc., § 526a) may be brought to compel the State to discharge its duty under Proposition 139, the Prison Inmate Labor Initiative of 1990, to require a private sector manufacturer’s payment of prevailing wages to inmates, given the State’s right to a percentage of inmates’ wages to defray expenses of their room and board.

Factual and Procedural Background

A discussion of legal provisions is required to place the facts in context. In November 1990 the voters approved Proposition 139 (codified in Pen. Code, § 2717.1 et seq.), which requires the Director of Corrections (the Director) to “establish joint venture programs within state prison facilities to allow joint venture employers [private businesses] to employ inmates confined in the state prison system for the purpose of producing goods or services.” (Pen. Code, § 2717.2.) The purposes of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.