Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2

Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Three

June 11, 2008, Filed

A114510, A114981

Case Summary

Procedural Posture

Defendant employer appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which found that the employer violated the Hayward Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) (Hayward Mun. Code, art. 14, § 2-14.010 et seq.), breached its city contracts, and committed labor law violations. The trial court awarded back wages and unpaid benefits, imposed statutory penalties, and awarded attorney fees and costs to plaintiff employees.


The employer did not pay the wages required by the LWO to employees whose work on city contracts was performed outside the city. The court held that the extraterritorial effects of the LWO did not violate Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7. The LWO was not unconstitutionally vague because it sufficiently indicated that it was applicable to all employees who worked on or under a service contract with the city. The LWO applied to those employees even when they performed other tasks. The trial court properly shifted the burden of proof to the employer because it was best able to determine which employees were covered. The contracts were sufficiently definite, and the employees were intended third party beneficiaries under Civ. Code, § 1559. The employees could recover penalties under Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (g), because their amendment of their complaint to allege such claims after the statute granted them standing was not a retroactive application of the statute and related back to their original complaint. The violations were not willful under Lab. Code, § 203, because the employer had good faith arguments. Penalties were properly calculated under Lab. Code, §§ 223, 227.3, 210, 225.5.


The court affirmed both the judgment and the postjudgment orders.

LexisNexis® Headnotes



Civil Procedure > Appeals > Summary Judgment Review > Standards of Review

HN1  Standards of Review

Issues that were summarily adjudicated based on undisputed facts are subject to de novo review on appeal.


Governments > Local Governments > Duties & Powers

HN2  Duties & Powers

The language of Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7, and cases interpreting it make it clear the prohibition against a municipality exercising power outside its territorial boundaries applies only where a local government exercises its regulatory or police power, as opposed to its contracting or proprietary power.


Governments > Local Governments > Duties & Powers

HN3  Duties & Powers

See Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.

Access the full text caseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

163 Cal. App. 4th 1157 ; 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572 ; 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 864 ; 13 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1359

FRANCISCA AMARAL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 et al., Defendants and Appellants; CITY OF HAYWARD, Intervener and Respondent.

Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by Amaral (Francisca) v. Cintas Corporation No. 2, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1260 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., July 2, 2008)

Review denied by, Request denied by Amaral (Francisca) v. Cintas Corporation No. 2 (City of Hayward), 2008 Cal. LEXIS 10854 (Cal., Sept. 10, 2008)

Prior History:  [1] Superior Court of Alameda County, No. HG03-103046, Steven Brick, Judge.