This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Breach of Contract
Wage Dispute

Francisca Amaral, Nelva Hernandez, Angelita Moreno, Rodriga Ocegueda

Published: Dec. 31, 2005 | Result Date: Sep. 23, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: HG03103046 Bench Decision –  $805,243

Judge

Steven A. Brick

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Eileen B. Goldsmith
(Altshuler Berzon LLP)

Michael P. Rubin
(Michael P. Rubin & Associates Inc.)


Defendant

Diane L. Gibson

Michael A. Kelly
(Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger)


Facts

The plaintiffs, Francisca Amaral, Nelva Hernandez, Angelita Moreno and Rodriga Ocegueda were employees of Cintas Corp. The plaintiffs provided services which consisted of washing and sorting uniforms, towels and mats pursuant to a contract with the city of Hayward. The city has a living-wage ordinance that requires a company contracting with the city for an amount of $25,000 or more, to pay its employees a living wage based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index. The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Cintas, alleging violations of the living wage ordinance, Labor Code, and Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and breach of contract. The class included 215 employees that were employed between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2003. The city of Hayward intervened on the plaintiffs' side.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that they were third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the defendant and the city. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant violated the city's living-wage ordinance by paying them less than what they were entitled to under the ordinance. The plaintiffs further claimed that the city violated the California Labor Code when it failed to pay employees their full wages when due and failed to pay vacation time to employees who had resigned, or whose employment was terminated.

DEFENDANTÆS CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the city ordinance did not apply to the
plaintiffs or to all hours worked by the plaintiffs. The defendant also argued that the ordinance was
unconstitutionally vague.

Specials in Evidence

The plaintiffs sought $800,000 and $300,000 for interest.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought an undisclosed amount in back pay and civil penalties for the state labor code violations.

Result

$805,243; The Hon. Steven Brick ruled that the city's living-wage ordinance applied to the plaintiffs.


#89240

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390