Key Takeaways

• Local retailers accused of hiring minors as young as 14 without required permits and forcing 11-hour shifts
• Lawsuit details pervasive minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest break violations across five East San Jose locations
• County seeks back wages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief to deter future abuses and recoup taxpayer-funded safety-net costs

SAN JOSE, CA — A civil enforcement action filed on May 28 by the Santa Clara County Counsel’s Office accuses the owners and operators of five Metro by T-Mobile retail stores in East San Jose of systematically exploiting more than 60 workers—some as young as 14—through under-the-table pay, forbidden schedules for minors, and pervasive minimum wage and overtime law violations. The lawsuit, People of the State of California v. Dar Wireless et al., seeks injunctive relief, restitution of back wages, liquidated damages, and civil penalties under various provisions of the California Labor Code, Education Code, and Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint filed by County Counsel Tony LoPresti, defendants—operating under corporate entities such as DAR Wireless, JD San Jose Inc., Saeeds Inc., Al Safyah Inc., and Dalloni Alaeek LLC—employed teenagers without valid work permits, assigned them 11-hour shifts from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., and failed to compensate them at the City of San José and City of Milpitas minimum wages, which exceeded $15 per hour during the relevant period.

“For years, the owners hired and then exploited workers in the underserved community of East San Jose by paying their employees less than the minimum wage, directing workers to work long shifts without paying overtime, depriving their employees of meal and rest breaks, paying their employees in cash under the table without wage statements, and employing minors as young as 14 without required permits and for long hours that state law strictly prohibits,” the complaint states.

Pattern of Child Labor Violations
California law mandates that minors aged 14 and 15 may work no more than three hours on a school day and no more than 18 hours in a school week, and may not work more than eight hours in any day under any circumstances (Educ. Code, §§ 49112, 49116; Lab. Code, § 1391). Yet defendants allegedly scheduled minors for weekend shifts spanning 11 hours—far exceeding the eight-hour daily maximum—without first obtaining or maintaining the required Permits to Employ and Work from the minors’ schools (Educ. Code, §§ 49160–49164; Lab. Code, § 1299).

“Defendants routinely and frequently employ minors for more than eight hours in one day, including by assigning minors 11-hour shifts that run from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and even certain Fridays while school is in session,” the complaint alleges.

Each violation of minor hour restrictions potentially carries civil penalties of up to $1,000 for the first two violations and up to $10,000 for subsequent violations (Lab. Code, §§ 1285, 1288; Educ. Code, § 49112). Moreover, failure to secure or maintain a work permit for each minor employee constitutes a Class B violation with penalties up to $1,000 per minor employee (Lab. Code, §§ 1285, 1288(b)).

Wage Theft and Minimum Wage Shortfalls
From January 1, 2021, through December 2024, City of San José minimum wage rates rose from $15.45 to $17.55 per hour, while City of Milpitas rates climbed from $15.75 to $17.70 per hour. Nevertheless, defendants paid workers—including minors—flat rates as low as $13–$15 per hour without overtime premiums, despite scheduling many employees for workweeks exceeding 40 hours.

“Defendants illegally pay their minor employees no more than $15.00 per hour—and sometimes as low as $13.00 per hour—for work performed at the SJS Stores, even though the applicable minimum wage exceeded $15.00 at all relevant times,” the complaint specifies.

California law requires overtime at 1.5 times the regular rate for hours worked beyond eight in a day or 40 in a week, and double time for hours over 12 in a day (Lab. Code, § 510). The complaint alleges a deliberate pattern of straight-time pay for all hours, with no premiums, depriving employees of thousands in overtime wages. Penalties include restitution of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and civil penalties up to $250 for each underpaid employee per pay period (Lab. Code, §§ 558(a), 1197.1, 1193.6).

Meal and Rest Break Denials
California Labor Code section 512 obligates employers to provide a 30-minute, uninterrupted, duty-free meal period for every workday exceeding five hours, and a second meal period for shifts longer than 10 hours. Defendants allegedly scheduled employees—often working alone—to remain on duty during their unpaid “lunch breaks,” interrupting them to assist customers, and refused to provide uninterrupted rest periods of at least 10 minutes for each four hours worked (Lab. Code, § 226.7; Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004). Each missed meal or rest break requires premium pay equal to one additional hour at the employee’s regular rate (Lab. Code, § 226.7(c)), but defendants reportedly did not reimburse any employees for these missed breaks.

Lack of Accurate Wage Statements and Record-Keeping
Employers must furnish accurate, itemized wage statements at each payday, showing gross wages, total hours, deductions, net wages, pay period, and employer information (Lab. Code, § 226(a); IWC Wage Order 7, § 7(B)). Defendants allegedly paid employees with cash in unmarked envelopes without any itemized statements, forcing workers to sign a sheet acknowledging a cash amount but containing no breakdown of wages, hours, or deductions. In addition, defendants failed to maintain time records and wage statements for inspection (Lab. Code, § 226; IWC Wage Order 7, § 7(A)), subjecting them to civil penalties of at least $250 per employee per violation (Lab. Code, § 226.3).

Pattern of Unlawful Business Practices
By systematically undercutting minimum wage, overtime, meal/rest break, and child labor protections, defendants gained an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding retailers. The lawsuit seeks to recover the wages stolen from workers and impose civil penalties under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) and local wage theft enforcement initiatives. “The owners of these stores consistently cheat their employees to line their own pockets. It’s bad for the workers, it’s unfair to competitors, and it often leads to taxpayers footing the bill to provide safety net services to support workers who suffer these abuses,” said County Counsel Tony LoPresti in a news release.

T-Mobile Statement

“Metro by T-Mobile stores are independently owned and operated by third-party retailers. We require every retailer to comply with all laws, especially when it comes to employment practices. We take these concerns seriously and are looking into them.”

Potential Implications
If successful, the lawsuit could result in restitution of hundreds of thousands of dollars in back wages, civil penalties reaching tens of thousands per violation, and an injunction barring defendants from continuing unlawful practices. Furthermore, the action aligns with Santa Clara County’s broader effort to curb wage theft and child labor abuses, signaling a ramp-up in enforcement against “low-road” businesses.

People vs. Dar Wireless, et al-complaint

Explore More
🔗 Follow us on X @RealUSAHerald