Legal Opinion
Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 11, 2008No. A114510, A114981PublishedCited by 146 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McGUINESS, P. 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 1 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.,…
2Cases cited109 opinions
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. BurrSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
104 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by146 opinions
- Arias v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Liliana Canela v. CostcoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Villacres v. Abm Industries Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
- Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- Peters v. Early Healthcare Giver, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
141 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.