Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DAN SIEGEL, SBN 056400 ANNE BUTTERFIELD WEILLS, SBN 139845 EMILYROSE JOHNS, SBN 294319 SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, California q94612 Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 Emails: danmsiegel@gmail.com; abweills@gmail.com; emilyrose@siegelyee.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON, and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 17 ARMIDA RUELAS; DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS; KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO; and all others similarly situated, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; GREGORY J. AHERN, SHERIFF; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS ACTION Jury Trial Demanded 25 Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, 26 KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON, 27 and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO complain against COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; GREGORY J. 28 AHERN, SHERIFF, ALAMEDA COUNTY; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10 as follows: Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 1 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 18 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 2 1. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, 3 KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON 4 and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO are pre-trial detainees, detainees facing deportation, 5 federal detainees, and post-conviction prisoners confined in Santa Rita Jail in Alameda 6 County. Pursuant to a contract between the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and ARAMARK 7 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC (“ARAMARK”), plaintiffs were or are currently 8 employed by ARAMARK to perform industrial food preparation services and cleaning. 9 ARAMARK is a private, for-profit company that sells food prepared by prisoners to 10 third parties outside the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Contrary to California law, plaintiffs 11 are not paid for their work and are forced to work for the profit of a private company 12 under threat of punitive measures by their jailers. Plaintiffs bring this complaint on 13 their own behalf and on behalf of all incarcerated employees of ARAMARK, past, 14 present and future. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15 16 2. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 17 1331 (claims arising under the U.S. Constitution) and § 1343(a)(3) (claims brought to 18 redress deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights, privileges, and 19 immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 3. The state law claims in this action are so related to the claims in the action 21 within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case or 22 controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. The Court's jurisdiction 23 over these claims is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 24 4. Venue is proper in the United State District Court for the Northern 25 District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because the defendants are 26 located in the Northern District of California and § 1391(b)(2) because all of the acts 27 and/or omissions complained of herein occurred within the Northern District of 28 California. Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 2 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 of 18 PARTIES 1 2 5. At all times relevant hereto, ARMIDA RUELAS was a prisoner at Santa 3 Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to perform 4 sanitation services in the industrial food preparation kitchen. 5 6. At all times relevant hereto, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX was incarcerated 6 at Santa Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to 7 perform industrial food preparation services. 8 9 10 11 7. At all times relevant hereto, BERT DAVIS was incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to perform industrial food preparation services. 8. At all times relevant hereto, KATRISH JONES was incarcerated at Santa 12 Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to perform 13 sanitation services in the industrial food preparation kitchen. 14 9. At all times relevant hereto, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU was incarcerated at 15 Santa Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to 16 perform industrial food preparation services. 17 10. At all times relevant hereto, DAHRYL REYNOLDS was incarcerated at 18 Santa Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to 19 perform industrial food preparation services. 20 11. At all times relevant hereto, MONICA MASON was incarcerated at Santa 21 Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to perform 22 sanitation services in the industrial food preparation kitchen. 23 12. At all times relevant hereto, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO was incarcerated at 24 Santa Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to 25 perform sanitation services in the industrial food preparation kitchen. 26 13. Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA is a public entity, operating under the 27 laws of the State of California, which is responsible for all of the acts and omissions of 28 the Alameda County Sheriff and all of the Sheriff's deputies, agents and employees, including those named herein, and Santa Rita Jail. Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 3 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 4 of 18 1 14. At all times relevant hereto, defendant GREGORY J. AHERN was the 2 Sheriff of Alameda County. In committing the acts and omissions described in the 3 complaint, he was acting under color of law and within the course and scope of his 4 employment. Defendant AHERN is sued in his individual and official capacities. 5 15. At all times relevant hereto, ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, 6 LLC was a private, for-profit company that employed prisoners incarcerated in Santa 7 Rita Jail, including plaintiffs, to perform uncompensated industrial food production 8 services and sanitation services. 9 16. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of the defendants 10 sued herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and 11 thereon allege that each DOE defendant is or was employed by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 12 or by ARAMARK. Plaintiff thereby sues such defendants by such fictitious names 13 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. Plaintiffs will seek leave of the Court 14 to amend this complaint when the true names of these defendants have been 15 ascertained. STATEMENT OF FACTS 16 17 17. In 1990, California voters approved Proposition 139, which allows 18 California counties to hire out prisoners confined in their jails to private entities, 19 provided the prisoners are paid comparable wages to non-incarcerated employees of 20 the private company. 21 18. Pursuant to this voter-approved law, jails that hire out prisoners may 22 make deductions for state and federal taxes, room and board, lawful restitution fines or 23 victim compensation, and family support, but must provide no less than 20 percent of 24 the wages directly to the prisoner. Prisoners may, in addition to receiving wages, be 25 eligible for credits that reduce the length of time they serve in jail, which reduces 26 incarceration costs. 27 28 19. Santa Rita Jail is Alameda County’s jail. It houses persons who are awaiting trial, persons who have been convicted of a crime and are awaiting sentencing, Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 4 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 5 of 18 1 persons in immigration detention, and persons who are convicted of crimes and serving 2 county jail sentences and, in some instances, state prison sentences. 3 20. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, 4 KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON, 5 and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO are or were at one time incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail, 6 which is operated by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. 7 21. Alameda County contracted with ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL 8 SERVICES, LLC as early as July 1, 2015. The contract allows ARAMARK to employ 9 persons imprisoned in Santa Rita Jail without compensating them. As a result of the 10 contract, ARAMARK suffers or permits to work prisoners confined in Santa Rita Jail. 11 12 13 22. Prisoners prepare and package food in Santa Rita Jail’s industrial kitchen and clean and sanitize the kitchen after the conclusion of the day’s food preparation. 23. Defendants divide the work day so that male prisoners are assigned to 14 longer, daytime shifts, and female prisoners are assigned to shorter, nighttime shifts. 15 Women prisoners are not provided the same opportunity to work and earn money as 16 their similarly situated male counterparts. 17 24. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, 18 KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON, 19 and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO were employed by ARAMARK to perform services 20 pursuant to this contract. They worked with other prisoners in Santa Rita Jail under the 21 supervision of ARAMARK employees and under guard of COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22 Sheriff’s Deputies. 23 24 25 25. No prisoner is compensated for their work. Plaintiffs performed and continue to perform work, including overtime, for no compensation. 26. Plaintiffs and other prisoner-employees of ARAMARK are coerced to 26 work. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sheriff’s deputies threaten plaintiffs and other prisoner- 27 employees of ARAMARK that if they refuse to work, they will receive lengthier jail 28 sentences or be sent to solitary confinement, where they would be confined to a small Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 5 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 6 of 18 1 cell for 22 to 24 hours a day. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sheriff’s deputies also threaten to 2 terminate prisoners’ employment if they need to take a sick day or are injured. 3 4 5 27. Such threats cause prisoners to work through illness and injury, sometimes caused by the unsafe conditions in the industrial kitchen. 28. Although plaintiffs and other kitchen workers are not compensated for 6 their work, working in the kitchen means that plaintiffs can get out of their cells for 7 some portion of the day, which is beneficial to their physical and mental health. 8 9 10 29. Defendants deny plaintiffs wages without any process or hearing, either prior to or following the denial, to determine why they should not receive their wages. 30. In late October 2019, male prisoner-employees of ARAMARK and other 11 prisoner workers in the jail staged a worker strike to advocate for improved conditions 12 at the jail, including more nutritious food, lower commissary prices, access to cleaning 13 supplies, and daily exercise and recreation time. In response, Sheriff’s deputies forced 14 female prisoners to work all shifts in their place so that ARAMARK could meet their 15 quotas by threatening the women that women prisoners would not be provided meals 16 unless they worked. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS and MONICA MASON were forced to 17 work under this threat. 18 31. ARAMARK sells the food prepared by plaintiffs to third parties for a 19 profit. ARAMARK receives an economic windfall as a result of the uncompensated 20 labor of prisoners confined in Santa Rita Jail. 21 32. The contract between ARAMARK and the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22 permits prisoner labor to be used for the profit of a private company without 23 compensation to the workers. Therefore, defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and 24 SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN know or should have known that they are providing 25 uncompensated labor in violation of state and federal law. 26 33. Plaintiff ARMIDA RUELAS currently works for ARAMARK. She began 27 working in or around June of 2019 when she was a pre-trial detainee. She continued to 28 work following her conviction but prior to sentencing. Ms. RUELAS currently performs Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 6 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 7 of 18 1 work in the kitchen’s scullery washing items used for meal preparation and service and 2 preparing meals. Her work hours vary but she has typically worked at night for four- 3 hour shifts Monday through Friday performing work such as meal preparation and 4 sanitation. During some days of the late October 2019 workers strike, she was forced to 5 work long day time hours. She was never paid any wages for the work she performed. 6 34. Plaintiff DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX worked for ARAMARK while he was 7 incarcerated. He worked in the jail’s kitchen, and his hours and days worked varied. On 8 occasions he worked in excess of eight hours a day or 40 hours a week. He was never 9 paid any wages for the work he performed. 10 35. Plaintiff BERT DAVIS worked for ARAMARK from approximately 11 October 29, 2018 to March 2019. He was a pretrial detainee for most, if not all of the 12 time he worked. He worked in the jail’s kitchen, performing work such as meal 13 preparation, and his hours and days worked varied. On occasions, he worked in excess 14 of eight hours a day or 40 hours a week. He was never paid any wages for the work he 15 performed. 16 36. Plaintiff KATRISH JONES worked for ARAMARK while she was 17 incarcerated. She worked in the jail’s kitchen performing work such as meal 18 preparation and sanitation, and her hours and days worked varied. She was never paid 19 any wages for the work she performed. 20 37. Plaintiff JOSEPH MEBRAHTU worked for ARAMARK while he was 21 incarcerated. He worked in the jail’s kitchen performing work such as sanitation, and 22 his hours and days worked varied. On occasions, he worked in excess of eight hours a 23 day or 40 hours a week. He was never paid any wages for the work he performed. 24 38. Plaintiff DAHRYL REYNOLDS worked for ARAMARK from 25 approximately June of 2019 to November 2019. He worked in the scullery and in meal 26 preparation. His hours and days worked vary. On occasion, he worked in excess of eight 27 hours a day or 40 hours a week. He was never paid any wages for the work he 28 performed. Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 7 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 8 of 18 1 39. Plaintiff MONICA MASON works for ARAMARK and has been employed 2 on and off from approximately May 2019 when she was a pre-trial detainee. She 3 continued to work following her conviction but prior to sentencing. Ms. MASON 4 performs work in the kitchen’s scullery washing items used for food preparation and 5 service. Her work hours vary, but she typically worked at night for four-hour shifts 6 Monday through Friday and now works longer shifts on the weekends. During some 7 days of the October 2019 workers strike, she was forced to work long day time hours. 8 She was never paid any wages for the work she performed. 9 40. Plaintiff LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO works for ARAMARK. He was hired in 10 May of 2019, and he continued to work in the kitchen until the end of October 2019. He 11 is a detainee in immigration proceedings and has been for the duration of his 12 employment. Mr. NUNEZ-ROMERO worked in the kitchen’s warehouse and performed 13 work such as food preparation. He worked six days a week for approximately eight to 12 14 hours a day. Previously, he worked seven days a week. He was never paid any wages for 15 the work he performed. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 16 17 41. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 18 situated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) on the basis that there is a 19 well-defined community of interest in this litigation, the proposed class is easily 20 ascertainable, and the proposed class is quite numerous. 21 42. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class: All individuals 22 incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail who perform or performed services for ARAMARK 23 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC in their jail kitchen facility any time during the 24 period that began four years prior to the filing of the original complaint in this action 25 until the final disposition of this action. 26 43. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, MONICA MASON, and BERT DAVIS seek 27 to represent the following subclass: All persons incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail who 28 perform or performed services for ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC in Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 8 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 9 of 18 1 their jail kitchen facility who worked as pretrial detainees, any time during the period 2 that began when ARAMARK began suffering or permitting pretrial detainees to work 3 until the final disposition of this action. This subclass will be known as the Pretrial 4 Detainee Subclass. 5 44. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, and MONICA MASON 6 seek to represent the following subclass: All women incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail who 7 perform services for ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC in their jail kitchen 8 facility pursuant to a policy, procedure, and/or practice that assigns women prisoners 9 to shorter, nighttime shifts in the jail kitchen, any time during the period that began 10 when ARAMARK began suffering or permitting women prisoners to work until the final 11 disposition of this action. This subclass will be known as the Women Prisoner Subclass. 12 45. Plaintiff LUIS ROMERO-NUNEZ seeks to represent the following 13 subclass: All detainees awaiting immigration proceedings incarcerated in Santa Rita 14 Jail who perform services for ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC in their 15 jail kitchen facility any time during the period that began when ARAMARK began 16 suffering or permitting detainees awaiting immigration proceedings to work until the 17 final disposition of this action. This subclass will be known as the Immigration 18 Detainee Subclass. 19 46. On information and belief, the injury and loss of money to plaintiffs and 20 the putative class and subclasses are substantial, exceeding one million dollars and as 21 much as several million dollars. Plaintiffs and the putative class were regularly 22 subjected to the constitutional and statutory violations described in this Complaint. On 23 information and belief, the legal and factual issues are common to the class and affect 24 all class members. 25 47. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the class and subclass 26 descriptions with greater specificity or further division into subclasses, as well as to 27 limit the class or subclasses to particular issues, as warranted. 28 Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 9 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 10 of 18 Numerosity 1 2 48. The potential members of the class and of the subclasses as defined are so 3 numerous that joinder of all of them is impracticable. While the precise number of class 4 members has not been determined at this time, plaintiffs are informed and believe that 5 the class is comprised of more than 100 individuals. 6 49. On information and belief, ARAMARK’s employment records and 7 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA custody records will provide information as to the number 8 and location of all class members. Commonality and Predominance 9 10 50. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the class and 11 subclasses and predominate over individualized questions. These common questions of 12 law and fact include, without limitation: 13 51. Whether COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY J. AHERN force 14 detainees into involuntary servitude by forcing them to work for a private company 15 without compensation; 16 52. Whether COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY J. AHERN fail to 17 provide equal protection to women incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail allowing them less 18 out of cell time to work than their male counter parts; 19 53. Whether COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, GREGORY J. AHERN, and 20 ARAMARK violate the Equal Pay Act by employing a policy, practice or custom of 21 assigning men to longer, daytime shifts while assigning women to shorter, nighttime 22 shifts and denying them the opportunity to work equal hours and make equal pay to 23 their similarly situated male counter parts; 24 25 26 54. Whether ARAMARK violated the California Labor Code by not compensating plaintiffs and putative class members; 55. Whether ARAMARK violated the California Labor Code by not 27 compensating plaintiffs and putative class members at the minimum wage rate 28 established by law; Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 10 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 11 of 18 1 56. Whether ARAMARK violated the California Labor Code by not 2 compensating plaintiffs and putative class members for all “hours worked” in excess of 3 eight hours a day or 40 hours a week at premium overtime rates; 4 5 6 7 57. Whether ARAMARK violated §§17200, et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code by the actions alleged in this complaint; 58. Whether the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA violated plaintiffs’ and putative class members’ statutory rights through threats, coercion and intimidation; 8 59. Whether Sheriff GREGORY J. AHERN ratified the unlawful actions of 9 ARAMARK; and 10 60. Whether plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to damages, 11 restitution, statutory penalties, premium wages, declaratory, injunctive and declaratory 12 relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs, and other relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 13 California Labor Code provisions, and Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. Typicality 14 15 61. Named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of putative class and 16 subclass members. Plaintiffs and all members of the putative class and subclasses 17 sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by defendants' common 18 course of conduct, which, as alleged herein, violates federal and California law. Adequacy of Representation 19 20 62. Plaintiffs adequately represent and protect the interests of class and 21 subclass members. Plaintiffs have no interests which are adverse to the class. Plaintiffs 22 are similarly situated to other class and subclass members. Counsel who represents 23 plaintiffs are competent and experienced in litigating civil rights class actions, wage and 24 hour cases, and class actions generally. Superiority of Class Action 25 26 63. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 27 adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all class members is not 28 practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 11 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 12 of 18 1 questions affecting only individual members of the class. Each member of the class has 2 been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of the unlawful policies and 3 practices described herein. Class members are unlikely to otherwise obtain effective 4 representation to ensure full enforcement of their rights absent class certification. 5 64. Class action treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to 6 litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties 7 and the judicial system. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be 8 encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a 9 class action. EXHAUSTION 10 11 65. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, 12 KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, and DAHRYL REYNOLDS each filed a 13 California Government Claim on his or her behalf and on behalf of others similarly 14 situated regarding the matters asserted herein with the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 15 pursuant to California Government Code §§ 910, et seq. on August 8, 2019. The 16 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA denied their claims on August 19, 2019. 17 66. Plaintiffs MONICA MASON and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO filed a California 18 Government Claim on their behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated regarding 19 the matters asserted herein with the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA pursuant to California 20 Government Code §§ 910, et seq. on November 8, 2019. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN VIOLATION OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (By ARMIDA RUELAS, MONICA MASON, and BERT DAVIS and the Pretrial Detainee Subclass and LUIS ROMERO-NUNEZ and the Immigration Detainee Subclass Against COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY J. AHERN) 67. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 above as though fully set forth herein. 68. By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiffs and the putative subclasses were forced to perform work for defendants without pay. Plaintiffs and the putative Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 12 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 13 of 18 1 subclasses were and continue to be coerced to work without compensation under threat 2 of physical punishment and restraint. 3 69. The work plaintiffs performed was not a part of daily housekeeping duties 4 in the jail’s personal and communal living areas. Rather, it was forced labor for the 5 profit of ARAMARK. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1589) (By ARMIDA RUELAS, MONICA MASON, and BERT DAVIS and the Pretrial Detainee Subclass and LUIS ROMERO-NUNEZ and the Immigration Detainee Subclass Against All Defendants) 70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 above as though fully set forth herein. 71. By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiffs and the putative subclasses were 13 forced to perform work for defendants without pay. Plaintiffs and the putative 14 subclasses were and continue to be coerced to work without compensation under threat 15 of physical punishment and restraint. 16 72. The work plaintiffs performed was not a part of daily housekeeping duties 17 in the jail’s personal and communal living areas. Rather, it was forced labor for the 18 profit of ARAMARK. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (By ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, and MONICA MASON and the Women Prisoner Subclass Against COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY J. AHERN) 73. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 72 above as though fully set forth herein. 74. By virtue of the foregoing, female plaintiffs and members of the putative subclass are assigned to shifts typically lasting only four hours and occurring during nighttime hours while male prisoners are assigned to shifts typically lasting eight hours or more and occurring during daytime hours. Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 13 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 14 of 18 75. 1 Out of cell time is crucial for the physical and mental health of prisoners. 2 Further, the more hours a prisoner works, the financial compensation that they are 3 entitled to under California law increases. 76. 4 5 Female plaintiffs and members of the putative subclass have been denied these benefits and opportunities to earn compensation based solely on their sex. 77. 6 Defendants’ policy and practice does not serve important governmental 7 objectives. Further, assigning women to work shorter, nighttime shifts while assigning 8 men to work longer, daytime shifts is not substantially related to the achievement of 9 important government objectives. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C § 1983) (By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY J. AHERN) 10 11 12 13 78. 14 15 though fully set forth herein. 79. 16 17 80. 81. Due process of law requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the time the wages were due before denying prisoners wages. 82. 22 23 In doing so, California established a property right in the payment of wages that cannot be denied without due process of law. 20 21 California, by statute, established the rights of all prisoners to receive compensation for work performed for the benefit of a for profit company. 18 19 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 above as Defendants routinely and deliberately deny plaintiffs and the putative class wages for their work. 83. 24 Plaintiffs were provided no opportunity to be heard prior to the 25 defendants’ failure to pay wages and thus have been denied property without due 26 process of law. 27 /// 28 /// Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 14 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 15 of 18 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO PAY WAGES (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 218) (By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against All Defendants) 1 2 3 84. 4 5 though fully set forth herein. 85. 6 7 By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiffs and the putative class performed work for defendants. 86. 8 9 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 83 above as Defendants failed to pay plaintiffs and the putative class for their work and owe plaintiffs and the putative class wages pursuant to statutory and constitutional law. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE (Cal. Lab. Code § 1194) (By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against All Defendants) 10 11 12 13 87. though fully set forth herein. 14 15 88. 89. Plaintiffs and the putative class were paid less than the minimum wage by defendants for all hours worked. 18 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME PREMIUM WAGES (Cal. Lab. Code § 1194) (By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against All Defendants) 19 20 90. 21 22 By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiffs and the putative class performed work for defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 86 above as Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 89 above as though fully set forth herein. 23 91. Plaintiffs performed work for defendants. 24 92. Plaintiffs worked overtime hours. 25 93. Defendants knew or should have known that plaintiffs had worked 26 overtime hours. 27 94. 28 Plaintiffs were not paid for all of the overtime hours worked. /// Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 15 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 16 of 18 1 2 3 4 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO PAY EQUAL WAGES IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT (Cal. Lab. Code § 1197.5) (By ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, and MONICA MASON and the Women Prisoners Subclass Against all Defendants) 95. 5 6 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 above as though fully set forth herein. 96. 7 Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON and 8 the putative subclass were assigned to work fewer and less desirable hours than their 9 male counterparts working for ARAMARK. 97. 10 Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON and 11 the putative subclass were performing substantially similar work as the male prisoners 12 with regard to skill, effort and responsibility. 98. 13 Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON and 14 the putative subclass were working under similar working conditions as their male 15 counterparts. 99. 16 Defendants, in assigning women prisoners fewer and less desirable hours 17 to work based on gender, have denied plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, 18 MONICA MASON and the putative subclass the opportunity to earn equal wages to 19 men. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR COMPETITION (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) (By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC.) 100. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 99 above as though fully set forth herein. 101. California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. prohibit unfair competition, including any unlawful or unfair business act or practice. 102. Defendant ARAMARK engaged in an unlawful business practice when it used uncompensated labor to produce a product for profit. Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 16 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 17 of 18 1 2 3 103. This business practice is forbidden by law and against public policy as it gives Aramark an unfair advantage over similar business. 104. Defendant ARAMARK continues to exploit incarcerated employees to gain 4 market share, and plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendant ARAMARK will 5 continue such exploitation. 6 7 8 9 105. As a result of defendant ARAMARK’s unlawful business practice, plaintiffs lost money in the form of wages that they were rightfully owed. 106. The failure to pay wages to incarcerated employees also constitutes an unfair business practice because the harm to victims that results from this practice 10 outweighs its utility to the business, the practice offends public policy, and the practice 11 is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to 12 consumers. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BANE ACT (Cal. Civil Code § 52.1) (By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against All Defendants) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 107. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 106 above as though fully set forth herein. 108. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants and their agents and employees interfered by threats, intimidation, and/or coercion with the rights of plaintiffs, secured by the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 21 22 23 24 109. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants ARAMARK and Does 1-3 acted with malice and oppression and the intent to deprive and did deprive plaintiffs and the putative class of their rights to be free from forced labor without compensation. DAMAGES 25 26 27 28 110. As a result of the actions of defendants and its employees, plaintiffs have been injured and have suffered damages as follows: a. They have been financially injured and damaged including, but not limited to, by the loss of wages and overtime premiums due to plaintiffs and the Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 17 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 18 of 18 1 2 putative class; b. They have suffered emotional distress. 3 4 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court grant them relief as follows: 5 (1) General damages, in an amount to be determined; 6 (2) Special damages, in an amount to be determined; 7 (3) Punitive damages, in an amount to be determined; 8 (4) Reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Cal. Code Civ. P. 9 §1021.5; 10 (5) Declaratory relief finding that defendants' acts and practices as described 11 herein violate the constitutional and statutory rights of plaintiffs and the 12 putative classes and subclasses; 13 (6) Injunctive relief requiring defendants to cease and desist from the acts and 14 practices described herein; 15 (7) Costs of suit; and 16 (8) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. 17 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 18 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable in this case. 19 20 21 Dated: November 18, 2019 SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By_/s/ Dan Siegel____ Dan Siegel Attorneys for Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMER Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 18