Low wage laundry workers in San Leandro, California won a landmark lawsuit on September 23, 2005 when an Alameda County judge Stephen Brick upheld their living wage claim against the nation's largest uniform giant, Cintas Corporation.
In what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind over living-wage laws, Superior Court Judge Steven Brick denied claims by Cintas that the ordinance was unconstitutional and ordered the company to pay $805,243, plus $300,000 in interest. The decision requires Cintas, the Cincinnati based uniform rental giant, to pay more than $1 million in interest and back wages to 219 workers who washed and sorted uniforms, towels and mats between 1999 and 2003 at the company's San Leandro and Union City plants.
The workers' suit was based on the city of Hayward's living wage ordinance, which requires that companies that have city contracts of $25,000 or more pay their employees a living wage based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index.
The Hayward law was passed in 1999, and later that year, Cintas signed a $105,000 contract to wash towels and uniforms for Hayward city workers. The law requires companies that do business with the city to pay their workers a minimum wage of $9.26 per hour plus health insurance, or $10.71 per hour for those who don't get health benefits.
In 2003, Nelva Hernandez, 45, of San Leandro and 35-year-old Francisca Amaral, who work at Cintas' San Leandro laundry plant, filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, saying that they and as many as 50 other workers were paid less than the city law required. "For me, it's a victory," said Nelva Hernandez. "The message to workers is they have to fight and don't be afraid. The message to companies is don't step on the workers."
About 20 California cities have living wage ordinances, including Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond and San Francisco. More than 130 cities and municipalities nationwide have enacted living wage laws tied to government contract eligibility.
During a typical production shift at the Cintas San Leandro facility, employees would unload dirty uniforms, towels and mats, hang 1,500 uniforms to dry and sort uniforms for delivery.
In two separate contract renewal agreements before the suit was filed, Cintas agreed in writing to comply with Hayward's ordinance. Hayward reprimanded Cintas with a "violation chargeable as an infraction," but the real teeth in the law proved to be a provision that gives employees a "private right of action" to ask the court to enforce the ordinance. After the workers filed suit, Hayward intervened to defend its living wage ordinance.
In 1999, Hayward's living wage rate was $9.25 per hour, or $8 per hour if the employer provided health care benefits. At the time the suit was filed in 2003, the wage had risen to $10.71. Today, in 2005, the rate is $11.50 per hour without employer benefits.
In November, Judge Brick designated a class of about 220 workers in the case. "The award will be split among the group based on how long individuals worked at Cintas from 1999 to 2003" said an attorney for the plaintiffs.