The Bay Area lawsuit began when renowned employment lawyer Burt Boltuch heard that certain employees of a Bay Area Hooters franchise were expected to buy their own uniforms that a percentage of the staff’s tip money was being used by the management to purchase items for the restaurant. While these types of practices are obviously unfair, they are also illegal under California state law.
The Facts
The Second Amended Complaint, filed on behalf of 19 women who worked at Bay Area Hooters, seeks class action status. Among the claims against SF Hooters, Dublin Hooters, Campbell Hooters and Fremont Hooters are:
failure to provide the required ten minute paid rest break every four hours
failure to provide the 30 minute meal break as required
illegal distribution of employees’ tips including to a management controlled “slush fund”
requirement that employees pay for uniforms
requirement that employees pay for customer walkouts and cash shortages
failure to pay employees reporting time pay when they report to work as scheduled
failure to pay for all time worked
failure to pay employees for off-site promotions
The Second Amended Complaint also seeks recovery under the California Private Attorneys’ General Act (PAGA).
Lawsuit Background
The Bay Area lawsuit began when renowned employment lawyer Burt Boltuch heard that certain employees of a Bay Area Hooters franchise were expected to buy their own uniforms that a percentage of the staff’s tip money was being used by the management to purchase items for the restaurant. While these types of practices are obviously unfair, they are also illegal under California state law.
The Facts
The Second Amended Complaint, filed on behalf of 19 women who worked at Bay Area Hooters, seeks class action status. Among the claims against SF Hooters, Dublin Hooters, Campbell Hooters and Fremont Hooters are:
The Second Amended Complaint also seeks recovery under the California Private Attorneys’ General Act (PAGA).
The Second Amended Complaint
To see the Second Amended Complaint→