Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Minimum Wage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Upholds DPH Revocation of Uptown Market’s Food Permit After Audit Dispute
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 17 upheld the Department of Public Healths revocation of a food facility permit for Uptown Market, finding the department's enforcement and audit supported a finding that six employees were underpaid by about $90,000; appellant counsel said the owner was denied full audit records and signed a $99,000 settlement under duress.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4-0 on Jan. 17 to uphold the Department of Public Health's revocation of Uptown Market's food facility permit after an administrative hearing about alleged unpaid minimum wages. Appellant counsel argued the business and its owner, Abdul Habashi, were denied critical audit records and signed a settlement under economic duress; DPH said Office of Labor Standards Compliance (OLSC) investigators conducted a multi‑year audit that identified underpayments to six employees totaling "over $90,000."
Appellant attorney (recorded in the hearing) said the owner was given a settlement requiring repayment of "$99,000" and "reluctantly signed" because the store was closed and he was given no usable audit documentation for review. The owner described the sum as "extraordinary, unbelievable" and said some alleged former employees told him they had been paid.
Anne Pearson, appearing for the City Attorneyon behalf of DPH, told the board "the law is very very clear" that food facility permits may be revoked for violations of the California Retail Food Code and that OLSC had investigated a complaint, reviewed records and interviewed workers. Investigator Josh Pastreich summarized the agency's work: "Most of the records that we found were literally kept written on the back of cigarette cartons," and when payroll records were lacking investigators relied on worker interviews and other evidence to calculate underpayments.
The board pressed both sides on process. Commissioners asked whether OLSC had provided the audit report and whether the permit holder had formally requested records or hearings; DPH and OLSC representatives said the appellant had opportunities to ask for hearings, and that an audit summary and audit documentation were available in the department's process though some worker interview forms were withheld to protect informant privacy. Appellant counsel disputed whether the appellant received a full audit file and said he had repeatedly requested the underlying accounting.
Commissioners framed their decision around the de novo hearing standard and the record before them. After deliberation, Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit revocation, and the board voted 4-0 to sustain DPH's action. The board's written decision will be posted with the meeting record.
What happens next: the revocation stands as a departmental enforcement tool; DPH and OLSC staff indicated they may pursue collection to recover unpaid wages if required by the enforcement process. The appellant was given leave to seek any further administrative remedies available under the municipal code and state law.
