2026년 7월 29일 수요일

[단독] 연방 노동부, 소스몰 한인식당 업체 7곳 무더기 제소 … “100만달러 합의요구”, 피해직원 91명

 https://knewsla.com/kcommunity/20260727766755/#google_vignette

[단독] 연방 노동부, 소스몰 한인식당 업체 7곳 무더기 제소 … “100만달러 합의요구”, 피해직원 91명

푸드소스·한상·옥빙설 등 관련 법인 7곳과 업주 크리스티나 김씨 등 피소 ... 임금체불·팁 착복·미성년자 불법 고용 의혹

2026년 7월 28일 화요일

[단독] 한인 IPA 의료계 첫 PAGA 집단소송 휘말려 … 나눔 메디컬 그룹·넥스트 메디컬그룹 피소

 https://knewsla.com/kcommunity/20260723433433/#google_vignette

[단독] 한인 IPA 의료계 첫 PAGA 집단소송 휘말려 … 나눔 메디컬 그룹·넥스트 메디컬그룹 피소

전 직원 이모씨 대표소송 제기…임금·노동법 위반 의혹에 한인 의료계 노동관행 첫 법적 시험대

LA 한인 의료계에서 처음으로 한인 IPA(독립의사협회) 메디칼 그룹을 상대로 한 노동법 PAGA 집단소송이 제기됐다. 이번 소송은 개인의 임금 분쟁을 넘어 한인 의료계의 고용 관행 전반이 법원의 판단을 받게 됐다는 점에서 업계의 관심이 집중되고 있다.

본보가 입수한 LA카운티 수피리어법원 소송문서에 따르면 전 직원 이모씨는 시니어 메디케어 전문 의사그룹인 넥스트 메디컬그룹(NXT IPA·대표 에드윈 최)을 비롯해 나눔 메디컬 그룹(Nanoom Medical Group), 조나 메디컬 그룹(Jonah Medical Group), 에드윈 최 등을 상대로 노동법 위반과 보복성 퇴사 등 총 14개 혐의로 소송을 제기했다.

이번 소송은 개인 손해배상 청구와 함께 캘리포니아 PAGA 집단소송으로 제기됐다.

넥스트 메디컬그룹 등은 남가주 한인 의료계에서 활동하는 독립의사그룹(IPA) 중 하나로 개원의와 전문의를 하나의 네트워크로 연결해 메디케어 어드밴티지와 메디캘 등 건강보험 가입자들의 진료를 관리하는 의료조직이다. 의료진 계약 관리와 보험사 네트워크 운영, 환자 진료 조정 등을 담당하는 핵심 조직으로, 한인 의료시장에서도 중요한 역할을 하고 있다.

이번 사건이 주목받는 이유는 한인 IPA를 상대로 제기된 첫 PAGA 집단소송 사례이기 때문이다. PAGA는 직원 한 명이 자신 뿐 아니라 같은 사업장에서 근무한 다른 직원들을 대신해 사업주의 노동법 위반에 대한 민사벌금을 청구할 수 있도록 한 제도다. 일반적인 개인 임금소송과 달리 회사 전체의 임금체계와 근로환경, 노동관행이 법적 심사 대상이 될 수 있다는 점에서 파급력이 크다.

The $2.4B grocery sushi industry has a dark side — and a new lawsuit exposes what workers were left with

 https://finance.yahoo.com/small-business/articles/2-4b-grocery-sushi-industry-143000629.html?guccounter=1

The $2.4B grocery sushi industry has a dark side — and a new lawsuit exposes what workers were left with

A photo of a grocery store working stocking sushi
shutterstock.com / Rafael Dias Katayama

Grocery store sushi has become big business, generating an estimated $2.4 billion in annual sales in the deli section, according to a report from the National Fisheries Institute's (NFI) Sushi Council.

Unfortunately, a new lawsuit alleges that some of the companies preparing this sushi do not have good business practices.

The Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement for San Diego County filed suit in San Diego Superior Court against five separate grocery store sushi companies in June, and, as NBC San Diego reported, the court filings included some pretty disturbing claims.

Sushi companies accused of mistreating workers

According to SF Gate, the defendants in the lawsuit include Ace Sushi Franchise Corp., Asiana Management Group Inc., Advanced Fresh Concepts Franchise Corp., FujiSan Franchising Corp., and Fuji Food Products Inc.

These companies offer grab-and-go sushi at supermarkets across the U.S., generating large profits for the stores.

Those actually making the sushi, however, may not be making very much money at all. The lawsuit claims that the companies misclassified the sushi makers as independent contractor franchisees instead of as employees. This enabled the companies to:

  • Avoid labor laws that protect employees from exploitation

  • Force workers to pay out of pocket for sushi robots, refrigerated displays, equipment, marketing fees, and franchisor services

  • Require workers to purchase a minimum volume of food and packaging each month to avoid a fee, and potential termination of their franchise agreement

  • Work extremely long hours, with sushi chefs routinely working 50 to 70 hours weekly, seven days a week

  • Keep total worker pay extremely low

  • "After deductions for equipment rental, raw food materials, financing installments, franchise fees, fines, and other charges, many franchisees are left with little to account for the long hours of work," the lawsuit states.

    The lawsuit seeks damages for workers dealing with this situation, including unpaid wages for the workers, as well as attorney fees. MoneyWise reached out to all five sushi companies for comment, with no response.

    Misclassification is a common issue

    Classifying workers as employees typically triggers workplace benefits like guaranteed overtime, meal and rest breaks, and minimum wage protections. But the aforementioned companies are calling people working for them franchisees instead.

    In fact, when you visit Ace Sushi's website, Franchise is one of just four links to click on from the home page, and you're invited to fill out an application, get an interview, get approved, and go through training.

    But you can't just call someone a franchisee if they actually are an employee. State labor laws and tax laws define what an employee is and what an independent contractor or self-employed person is. While these laws can vary by location, typically, some of the key factors determining a worker's status include:

    • The level of control the company has over work performance

    • Whether the employer controls the business and financial aspects of the job

    • Whether any employment benefits are available to the worker

    • What written contracts say

    "The keys are to look at the entire relationship and consider the extent of the right to direct and control the worker," The IRS guidance states.

    The lawsuit makes clear that officials believe the circumstances of this relationship suggest workers should have been employees and entitled to all of the rights that go along with that status.

    "We allege that these chefs were not running their own businesses," Branden Butler, director of the Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement, told NBC San Diego. "Nearly every major decision, from recipes and food quality to schedules and production requirements, was dictated by the parent companies. Workers routinely worked long hours, met the companies' requirements for keeping counters stocked, and kept operations running seven days a week."

  • If the suit finds that they were employees all along, they should get back pay for some of the money and benefits they missed out on.

    ,

    This article originally appeared on Moneywise.com under the title: The $2.4B grocery sushi industry has a dark side — and a new lawsuit exposes what workers were left with

    This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.