Amaral

Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2

Caution
163 Cal. App. 4th 1157·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 864·78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572·13 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1359
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 11, 2008A114510, A114981California23,483 words

Opinion

Opinion

McGUINESS, J.

— These appeals concern the constitutionality and application of a living wage ordinance enacted by the City of Hayward (City) and incorporated into its municipal contracts. Although Cintas entered into such contracts with the City, it did not provide the minimum wages or benefits required by the ordinance to employees who worked in the company’s stockroom or laundry production facilities, which are located outside of the City. Plaintiffs, representing a class of such employees, sued Cintas for violations of the living wage ordinance, Labor Code section 200 et seq., Business and Professions Code section 17200 and breach of contract. The trial court rejected Cintas’s challenges to the constitutionality of the ordinance and, on cross-motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication, found that Cintas violated the ordinance, breached its contracts with the City, and violated several Labor Code provisions as well as Business and Professions Code section 17200. The court awarded back wages and unpaid benefits, imposed penalties for the Labor Code violations pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.), and awarded plaintiffs…

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.