WinCo Janitors File Class Action Over Workplace Claims

In July 2026, janitors working at WinCo Foods stores filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging the supermarket chain systematically misclassified them as independent contractors while denying them basic employee protections and wages. The complaint, brought by named plaintiffs Rita Delgadillo, Efigenia Preciado, and Gloria Flores against WinCo Foods, LLC and contractor TEC Services, centers on a pattern of wage theft, unpaid overtime, and violation of California labor law that the Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld law firm alleges affected over 100 janitors across the state. The lawsuit alleges that WinCo required janitors to work extended shifts to complete assigned cleaning tasks but paid them only for their scheduled hours—meaning a janitor scheduled for an eight-hour shift who stayed until 9:30 p.m. to finish assigned work would receive compensation for just eight hours.

Beyond the unpaid labor, plaintiffs claim they received no meal breaks, no rest breaks, no sick leave, and no reimbursement for required expenses like using personal cell phones for work communication. This case is not isolated. In June 2026, a separate lawsuit filed by Ryan Jezierski and a group of WinCo employees in Clark County Superior Court in Washington raised similar allegations of wage theft and failure to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks. Together, these cases signal a broader pattern of workplace violations at one of the nation’s largest worker-owned supermarket chains.

Table of Contents

• What Wage and Labor Violations Do the Plaintiffs Claim?
• How Does California’s AB5 Test Apply to This Lawsuit?
• What Is the Prior Lawsuit and Pattern of Allegations?
• How Were Janitors Compensated and What Was Withheld?
• What Are the Key Legal Standards for Independent Contractor Classification?
• How Many Workers Are Included in the Class Action?
• Why Did This Investigation Lead to a Lawsuit?

What Wage and Labor Violations Do the Plaintiffs Claim?

The named plaintiffs allege that WinCo and TEC Services violated California wage-and-hour law in multiple specific ways. Janitors claim they did not receive minimum wage for all hours worked, were denied overtime pay, received no paid sick leave, and were not given the legally required rest breaks and meal periods. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that workers were not provided accurate, itemized wage statements showing what they earned and how deductions were calculated. A concrete example of the wage violations emerges in the unpaid-labor pattern: a janitor assigned to clean three store aisles might be scheduled for an eight-hour shift from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m., but the work assignment actually required nine and a half hours.

Rather than adjust the schedule or pay overtime, the worker was expected to complete the task on the scheduled shift—working off the clock for the extra hour and a half. This practice, when repeated across multiple janitors over months and years, amounts to systematic wage theft. The lawsuit also alleges that workers were not reimbursed for required business expenses. Janitors who used personal cell phones to receive work instructions or communicate schedule changes were not compensated for that expense or the data usage involved. Such reimbursement is required under California law when employees incur necessary expenses in the course of their work.

How Does California’s AB5 Test Apply to This Lawsuit?

At the heart of the misclassification claim is California’s Assembly Bill 5, a 2020 law that fundamentally shifted the burden of proof in worker classification disputes. Under AB5, workers are presumed to be employees unless the hiring entity can prove all three prongs of the ABC Test: (A) the worker is free from control and direction in performing work, (B) the work is outside the usual course of the company’s business, and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade or business. The plaintiffs’ allegation centers on the first prong: control. They claim that WinCo and TEC services exerted excessive control over the janitors’ work—specifying which stores to clean, which tasks to perform, what methods and cleaning products to use, and what schedule to follow.

This level of control directly contradicts independent contractor status, because truly independent contractors typically have substantial autonomy over how, when, and where they perform their work. A janitor classified as an independent contractor for a supermarket chain would normally be free to work at multiple locations, set their own hours, hire substitutes, and determine their own cleaning methods—none of which applied to the WinCo janitors. Under California law, willful misclassification of workers carries significant penalties: $5,000 to $25,000 per violation. If the lawsuit proves that WinCo and TEC knowingly misclassified janitors over a four-year period across multiple locations, the damages exposure could be substantial. The law presumes that any worker deemed not to meet all three prongs of the ABC Test is an employee, which reverses the traditional independent contractor arrangement and makes the burden fall entirely on the employer to prove otherwise.

What Is the Prior Lawsuit and Pattern of Allegations?

The WinCo janitor class action did not emerge in isolation. Six weeks earlier, in June 2026, a separate lawsuit was filed by Ryan Jezierski and a group of WinCo employees in Clark County Superior Court in Washington state, alleging nearly identical violations: failure to provide meal and rest breaks and failure to pay wages owed. The Washington case demonstrates that the allegations against WinCo are not limited to a single geographic area or contractor arrangement but reflect a broader operational pattern. The timing and similarity of these two lawsuits suggest a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents at specific stores.

When multiple separate groups of workers, in different states, file lawsuits alleging the same types of violations within a short timeframe, it typically indicates that the problematic practices are embedded in company policy or procedure rather than the result of a rogue manager or contractor. The Washington case focused on missing breaks and unpaid wages; the California case adds the misclassification element and alleges missing reimbursements and inaccurate wage statements. These lawsuits also follow a year-long investigation by the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, a watchdog group that documented systematic illegal treatment of janitors. The investigation preceded the class action filing and provided the factual foundation for understanding how widespread the violations were.

How Were Janitors Compensated and What Was Withheld?

The compensation structure alleged in the lawsuit reveals how the misclassification scheme worked in practice. Janitors were classified as independent contractors and paid on a per-assignment or per-shift basis, with compensation calculated only for their scheduled hours, never for time actually worked. If a janitor completed assignments on time, no extra pay was owed. If assignments required additional time, the worker absorbed the unpaid labor. Consider the practical effect: a janitor earning $18 per hour on a scheduled eight-hour shift would receive $144 for the day. If that shift actually required nine hours of work to complete all assigned tasks, the janitor earned $16 per hour on an effective basis—below minimum wage in many California jurisdictions.

Over the course of a year, this underpayment compounds significantly. A janitor working 50 weeks per year and losing one hour per shift to unpaid labor would lose approximately $900 in annual compensation, plus the overtime premium that should attach to hours worked beyond eight per day. The withholding extended beyond unpaid hours. Sick leave was not provided, forcing janitors to choose between working when ill or losing income. Meal breaks and rest breaks, legally required in California, were not honored in the work schedule. This created a situation where janitors worked through the day without the statutory breaks designed to protect worker health and safety.

What Are the Key Legal Standards for Independent Contractor Classification?

California’s ABC Test represents one of the strictest worker classification standards in the United States, and it directly contradicts the federal test used by the IRS and Department of Labor. The ABC Test presumes employment status and places the burden on the employer to disprove it by meeting all three prongs. Most industries struggle with the first prong—control—because most jobs inherently involve some degree of employer direction. In a supermarket cleaning context, the control element is particularly strong. The employer specifies which stores require cleaning, designates which areas and surfaces to clean, mandates which cleaning products to use (for safety and brand consistency), and sets the schedule and shift times.

The employer also exercises ongoing supervision: floor managers check work quality, report deficiencies, and expect compliance with standards. This is fundamentally inconsistent with independent contractor status, where the hiring entity typically cares only about the result, not the method. The second and third prongs of the ABC Test are also difficult to satisfy in the WinCo scenario. Cleaning is clearly part of the usual course of business for a supermarket—it is not peripheral work or specialized expertise. And the janitors were not customarily engaged in an independently established cleaning business; they worked exclusively for WinCo or its contractor, without the ability to serve other clients or operate as true independent businesses.

How Many Workers Are Included in the Class Action?

The plaintiffs’ attorneys estimate that over 100 janitors were misclassified across California, with at least 40 potential class members identified in Southern California alone. The lawsuit seeks to represent any person employed as a janitor at a WinCo store in California during the past four years from the filing date—a look-back period that captures approximately 48 months of wage violations.

A four-year look-back is standard in California wage-and-hour class actions and reflects the statute of limitations for wage claims. The fact that attorneys have identified at least 40 class members in one region alone suggests that the total class size could grow substantially once discovery begins and additional workers come forward. Workers who did not file individual complaints may be unaware of their legal rights or may fear retaliation, making the class action mechanism essential for providing relief to all affected employees.

Why Did This Investigation Lead to a Lawsuit?

The Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund’s year-long investigation documented the systematic treatment of WinCo janitors and provided evidence that plaintiffs’ counsel used to build the class action complaint. This investigation is significant because it demonstrates that the violations were not isolated or sporadic but reflected a consistent pattern.

Watchdog organizations typically do not invest a year of investigation resources into allegations that are marginal or confined to a single store or manager; the scope of their investigation reflects their assessment that the problem was substantial and systemic. The investigation also provided the plaintiff firms with documentary evidence, worker testimony, and comparative data showing how WinCo’s treatment of janitors differed from industry standards or from WinCo’s treatment of other employees. Such investigative work is often the foundation for establishing class-wide impact—a requirement in class certification—because it demonstrates that the violations affected many workers in a similar way rather than varying from person to person based on individual circumstances.

• —

You Might Also Like

• Wiley Rein Data Breach Class Action Claims Hackers Stole Sensitive Client Information
• Tesla Quebec Heat Pump Class Action Claims Cold-Weather Failures Could Cost Up to $400 Million
• Takeda Amitiza Antitrust Class Action Claims Generic Competition Was Improperly Delayed

Browse more: Arbitration | Attorneys | Claims | Compensation | Consumer