$4.5 Million in Wage Theft by Cheesecake Factory

The Labor Commissioner's Office recently found Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. liable in a $4.57 million wage theft case that underpaid 559 janitorial workers managed by Magic Touch Commercial Cleaning. Americlean Janitorial Services Corp., the Cheesecake Factory's janitorial contractor that subcontracted the work to Magic Touch is also liable. The wage theft occurred at eight locations in Ornage and San Diego counties.

“This case illustrates common wage theft practices in the janitorial industry, where businesses have contracted and subcontracted to avoid responsibility for ensuring workers are paid what they are owed,” said Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su. “Client businesses can no longer shield themselves from liability for wage theft through multiple layers of contracts. Our enforcement benefits not only the workers who deserve to be paid, but also legitimate janitorial businesses that are underbid by wage thieves.”

Investigators found that the janitorial workers began their shifts around midnight and worked until morning without proper meal or rest break periods. After working for eight hours, the Magic Touch workers were not released until Cheesecake Factory kitchen managers conducted walkthroughs to review their work. These walkthroughs would frequently lead to additional tasks that the janitorial workers had to complete before they were released for the day. This resulted in each worker logging up to 10 hours of unpaid overtime each week.

Citations against the Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. and Americlean Janitorial Services Corp. DBA Allied National Services for $4,206,351 were issued under Labor Code Section 2810.3, which took effect on January 1, 2015. The law holds client employers, that obtain labor from a subcontractor, responsible for their workplace violations. A client employer may be liable for the subcontractor’s owed wages, damages and penalties, as well as workers’ compensation violations.

- Eric A. Boyajian, Esq., Law Offices of Eric A. Boyajian, APC. www.loeab.com

Comments

Reimbursing Employees for Slip-Resistant Shoes

In a recent case, Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that the employer did not have to reimburse its employees for requiring them to buy and wear slip-resistant shoes. To avoid slip-and-fall accidents, BJ’s adopted a safety policy that required employees to wear black, slip-resistant, closed-toed shoes. The policy did not require employees to purchase a specific brand, style, or design of shoe. The policy also did not prohibit employees from wearing their shoes outside of work. Because the employees were not reimbursed for the cost of purchasing these shoes, a class action lawsuit was filed in 2014, seeking reimbursement for such costs under California Labor Code section 2802. California Labor Code section 2802(a) provides that “An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her...

Joint Employers: The Employer and the Temp Agency

In Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing, Inc ., plaintiff Elvia Jimenez was hired through a temp agency to work for a manufacturing company, U.S. Continental Marketing Inc. (USCM). Jimenez was ultimately fired by USCM, and she filed a wrongful termination case against USCM. At trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant soley because the jury believed that USCM was not Jimenez' employer. This decision was based on the defense argument that the temp agency had relatively more control over Jimenez than did USCM. The California Court of Appeal recently reversed the decision and the stage is set for a new trial. The Court of Appeal ruled that USCM was Jimenez' employer under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Jimenez was, in almost all respects, treated like an employee of the USCM, except that the USCM did not hire her, pay her, provide her benefits, or track her time. The temp agency did those things. But the Court of Appeal held that under F...

US Supreme Court: Employers Can Require Workers to Accept Individual Arbitration Agreements

Should employers be allowed to insist that disputes be handled in one-on-one arbitration, or should employees always be permitted to bring their claims in class or collective actions? This issue was raised in the case titled Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (together with other cases which raised the same issue: Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al.). The workers' argument was that such arbitration agreements violate employees' rights to act in concert and violates the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act). The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 today that companies may require workers to accept individual arbitration for wage and other workplace disputes rather than banding together in collective actions. US Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch wrote that as a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable, but as a matter of law, the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration a...

Barrister Boyajian's Blog

Search This Blog