Skip to main content

Cejas Commercial Interiors, Inc. v. Torres-Lizama

Or. Ct. App.December 18, 2013No. 100100532; A148291Cited 5 times
Defendant WinCejas Commercial Interiors, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
2013 WL 6665520, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 1493, 260 Or. App. 87, 316 P.3d 389
Judge(s)
Armstrong, Brewer, Duncan, Tempore
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
State
Oregon

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed that the drywall contractor (plaintiff) did not employ the defendants under Oregon's minimum-wage law, because the workers were engaged by a licensed subcontractor (Viewpoint) and the economic-realities test showed no employment relationship between plaintiff and defendants. The court reversed the attorney fees award on the FLSA counterclaim.

What This Ruling Means

Cejas Commercial Interiors v. Torres-Lizama

What Happened

Workers accused Cejas Commercial Interiors, a drywall contractor, of wage theft—paying them less than the legal minimum wage. The workers claimed they were employees who deserved minimum-wage protections under Oregon law and federal rules.

What the Court Decided

An appeals court ruled against the workers. The court found that Cejas did not directly employ them. Instead, the workers were hired through a licensed subcontractor called Viewpoint. Using an "economic realities test"—which examines whether someone truly works for a company—the court determined no employment relationship existed between the workers and Cejas. The court also reversed an earlier award of attorney fees that had been granted to the workers under federal wage laws.

Why This Matters

This case illustrates how companies can limit wage-law obligations by using subcontractors. It shows that workers may face challenges proving direct employment when hired through intermediary companies, even if they work on a company's project. Workers in similar situations should document their actual working conditions and understand who controls their work—information that might help establish true employment relationships in future disputes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.