Transcription
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISEASTERN DIVISIONLARRY DEAN, SR. and WHITNEY EDWARDS,On Behalf of Themselves and Other SimilarlySituated Employees, and JOHN NSIDIBE,ANTHONY DUNN, ROBERTO GUTIERREZAND DEMETRIE COLLINS,Plaintiffs,Case No.v.JudgeECLIPSE ADVANTAGE, INC. and MID-WESTTEMP GROUP, INC.,Defendants.COMPLAINTPlaintiffs Larry Dean, Sr. and Whitney Edwards, on behalf of themselves and all otherpersons similarly situated, known and unknown, and John Nsidibe, Anthony Dunn, RobertoGutierrez and Demetrie Collins (collectively “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint againstDefendants Eclipse Advantage, Inc. (“Eclipse”) and Mid-West Temp Group, Inc. (“Mid-West”)(collectively “Defendants”), state as follows:I.1.INTRODUCTIONPlaintiffs worked in a warehouse in Ellwood, Illinois that houses and distributesgoods for Walmart. Defendant Eclipse provides logistical services and staffing to the Walmartwarehouse. Defendant Mid-West is a staffing agency that provides additional temporary laborersto the Walmart warehouse through Defendant Eclipse and to other third party companies.When Plaintiffs and other employees of Defendants were hired, they were promised aminimum hourly wage rate, with a potential to earn more based on a productivity bonus. WhenPlaintiffs received their pay, they found their pay stubs did not contain information about theirhours worked and wages earned required by Illinois law and that they required to determine if1
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:2they had been paid the rate promised. Instead, their pay stubs either contained incorrect or noinformation on weekly hours worked. For example, when Plaintiff Whitney Edward received herpaycheck on July 22, 2011, her pay stub, attached as Exhibit A, indicated that she wascompensated for 12 hours at the promised minimum hourly rate of 9.25 per hour. However,Plaintiff Edwards had, in fact, worked substantially more hours than those indicated on her checkstub and, as a result, was compensated less than the promised minimum 9.25 per hour and wascompensated less than the federal minimum wages for many hours and was not compensatedovertime wages for overtime hours she worked as required by federal law. When PlaintiffEdwards sought copies of the records showing the number of hours Defendants billed and paidfor her work, as required by Illinois law and which would allow her to prove the underpaymentof her wages, Defendants refused to comply with her request in violation of Illinois law.In addition, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other laborers a minimum of fourhours “show up pay” on days when they were contracted to work but not utilized for a minimumof four hours and failed to pay Plaintiffs and other laborers vacation pay that they had earned andaccrued pursuant to Illinois law and Defendants had promised them to induce them to work forDefendants instead of working for other staffing agencies. Finally, Defendants failed to providePlaintiffs and other laborers with important information on Employment Notices and WagePayment Notices about their job assignment and pay which the Illinois legislature foundnecessary to protect such at-risk workers from “abuse of their labor rights, including unpaidwages, failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage and overtime violations, and unlawfuldeduction from pay for meals, transportation, equipment and other items.” 820 ILCS 175/2.Plaintiffs are seeking back pay for themselves and for other laborers employed by Eclipseand Mid-West and are seeking an injunction against Defendants from future violations of federal2
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:3and state wage laws. In addition, Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Defendants to end theirpractice of not providing accurate information in writing to temporary laborers about the termsand conditions of their employment at the beginning of assignments and when they are paid.II.2.NATURE OF THE CASEThis lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq.(“FLSA”), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. (“IMWL”), the IllinoisWage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. (“IWPCA”) and the Illinois Day andTemporary Labor Services Act, 820 ILCS 175/1 et seq. (“IDTLSA”) for Defendants’: 1) failureto pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees at least the federally and/or statemandated minimum wages for all time worked in violation of the FLSA, the IMWL and theIDTLSA; 2) failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees all earned wages atthe rate agreed to by the parties in violation of the IWPCA and the IDTLSA; 3) failure tocompensate Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for a minimum of four hours pay at theagreed upon rate when a day or temporary laborer was contracted to work for a third party clientcompany and was utilized for less than four hours in violation of the IDTLSA; 4) failure toprovide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees with Employment Notices as requiredby the IDTLSA; and 5) failure to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees withproper Wage Payment and Notices as required by the IDTLSA; 6) failure to pay Plaintiffs andthe class they seek to represent earned vacation pay as required by IWPCA; 7) as to Mid-Westonly, failure to provide bill and pay records to Plaintiff Whitney Edwards. For minimum wageand overtime claims arising under the FLSA, Plaintiffs Dean and Edwards bring this suit as acollective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and their consentsto act as representative Plaintiffs are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, respectively. For3
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:4claims arising under the IMWL, the IWPCA and the IDTLSA, Plaintiffs seek to certify theseclaims as class actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b).III.3.JURISDICTION AND VENUEThis Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1331, arising under 29 U.S.C. §216(b). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.4.Venue is proper in this judicial district as Defendants all have locations in thisjudicial district and a substantial part of the facts and events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claimsoccurred in this judicial district.IV.A.PARTIESPlaintiffs5.During the course of their employment, each Plaintiff:a. has handled goods that have moved in interstate commerce;b. has been an “employee” of Defendant Eclipse and/or Defendant Mid-West as thatterm is defined by the FLSA, the IMWL and the IWPCA;c. has been employed by Defendant Eclipse and/or Defendant Mid-West as a “dayor temporary laborer” (hereafter “laborer”) as that term is defined by theIDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5, to provide services to third party client companies,including Walmart; andd. has worked as a “laborer” on behalf of Eclipse and/or Mid-West during the courseof his employment.B.Defendants6.At all relevant times, Defendant Mid-West:4
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:5a. has been a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois;b. has conducted business in Illinois and within this judicial district;c. has been engaged in the business of employing day or temporary laborers toprovide services, for a fee, to third party clients companies pursuant to contractsbetween itself and the third party client companies;d. has been a “day and temporary labor service agency” (hereafter “StaffingAgency”) as defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5;e. has been an “enterprise” as defined by in Section 3(r)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(r)(1), and is an enterprise engaged in commerce, or in the production ofgoods for commerce, within the meaning of Section 3(s)(1)(A) and Defendant’sannual gross volume of sales or business done exceeds 500,000, exclusive ofexcise taxes; andf. has had two or more employees who have handled goods which have moved ininterstate commerce;g. has been the “employer” of named Plaintiff Whitney Edwards as that term isdefined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(d), the IMWL, 820 ILCS 105/3(c) and theIWPCA, 820 ILCS §115/1 et seq.7.At all relevant times, Defendant Eclipse:a.has been a Florida corporation conducting business in Illinois and withinthis judicial district;b.has been engaged in the business of employing day or temporary laborersto provide services, for a fee, to third party clients companies pursuant tocontracts between itself and the third party client companies;5
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:6c.has been a “day and temporary labor service agency” (hereafter “StaffingAgency”) as defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5;d.has been an “enterprise” as defined by in Section 3(r)(1) of the FLSA, 29U.S.C. § 203(r)(1), and is an enterprise engaged in commerce, or in theproduction of goods for commerce, within the meaning of Section3(s)(1)(A) and Defendant’s annual gross volume of sales or business doneexceeds 500,000, exclusive of excise taxes; ande.has had two or more employees who have handled goods which havemoved in interstate commerce;f.has been Plaintiffs’ “employer” as that term is defined by the FLSA, 29U.S.C. 203(d), the IMWL, 820 ILCS 105/3(c) and the IWPCA, 820 ILCS§115/1 et seq.V.8.FACTUAL BACKGROUNDDefendant Mid-West hired several employees including named Plaintiffs Edwardsand Nsidibe to work on a temporary basis for Defendant Eclipse. Other employees includingnamed Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins were hired directly by Defendant Eclipse.9.Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers have been employed by Defendantsin Illinois in one or more individual work weeks and have been employed to provide services atthird party client companies for a fee and pursuant to a contract between Defendants and thirdparty clients, including Walmart.10.Defendant Eclipse solicited Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins andother similarly situated employees, to work by promising an hourly wage rate of at least 10 an6
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:7hour and indicated to some employees that there was a possibility of earning additionalcompensation if certain production levels were achieved.11.Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins andother similarly situated employees the promised hourly wage rate of at least 10 an hour and insome instances paid Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees only a piece rate that was lessthan 10 an hour.12.In some cases, Defendant Eclipse compensated Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrezand Collins and other similarly situated employees at an hourly rate less than the applicableIllinois and federal minimum wage rate.13.Defendant Eclipse required Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins andsimilarly situated newly hired employees to attend an orientation for which they were never paid.One such orientation took place on or about June 5, 2011.14.Defendant Mid-West solicited Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and other similarsituated employees to work by promising a wage rate of 9.25 an hour. Defendant Mid-West didnot pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees the promised rate of 9.25 an hour and insome cases paid employees a rate less than the applicable Illinois and federal minimum wagerate.15.Defendant Mid-West required Plaintiff Edwards and Nsidibe and other similarlysituated new employees to attend an orientation for which they were never paid.16.Defendant Eclipse solicited Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins andother similarly situated employees to work, in part, by promising laborers that they would earnpaid vacation but Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent earned7
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:8vacation pay. See Eclipse Vacation Policy in Employee Handbook at page 14 attached hereto asExhibit D.17.In the three years prior to Plaintiffs’ filing this lawsuit, Defendants contractedPlaintiffs and similarly situated laborers and sent them to a third party client to perform work butPlaintiffs were not utilized by the third party client or were utilized for less than four (4) hours.On such occasions, Defendants did not compensate the laborers for a minimum of four hours asrequired by the IDTLSA.18.In the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit, Defendants failed toprovide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with an “Employment Notice” at the time ofdispatch to third party clients in the form of a statement containing the following items on a formapproved by the Illinois Department of Labor:a.the name of the day or temporary laborer;b.the name and nature of the work to be performed;c.the wages offered;d.the name and address of the destination of each day and temporarylaborer;e.terms of transportation; andf.whether a meal or equipment, or both, are provided, either by the day andtemporary labor service agency or the third party client, and the cost of themeal and equipment, if any.19.In the three years prior to Plaintiffs’ filing this lawsuit, Defendants failed toprovide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with a proper Wage Payment and Notice at thetime of payment of wages in the form of an itemized statement, on the day or temporary8
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:9laborers’ pay stub or on a form approved by the Illinois Department of Labor, containing thename, address, and telephone number of each third party client at which the day or temporarylaborer worked.20.On or about November 2, 2011, Plaintiff Whitney Edwards requested thatDefendant Mid-West provide her with bill and pay records pertaining to her employment at MidWest and her placement at Defendant Eclipse. Defendant Mid-West failed to provide copies ofthe requested bill and pay records.VI.21.CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONSPlaintiffs will seek to certify the state law claims arising under the IMWL andIDTLSA for Illinois-mandated minimum wages and overtime wages (Counts V-VI); state lawclaims arising under the IWPCA for unpaid wages (Count VII) and arising under the IDTLSAfor 4 hour minimum pay (Count VIII) and for notice violations (Counts IX – X). Plaintiffs willask the Court to determine the rights of the parties pursuant to those statutes and to direct theDefendants to account for all hours worked and wages paid to the class members during thetemporality of the class.22.Counts V through X are brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b)because:a.the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.While the precise number of Class Members has not been determined atthis time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have eachemployed over a thousand persons as day or temporary laborers in Illinoisduring the IMWL, IWPCA and IDTLSA Class Periods;9
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:10b.There are questions of fact or law common to the class, which commonquestions predominate over any questions affecting only individualmembers. These common questions of law and fact include, withoutlimitation:c.i.Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class theIllinois-mandated minimum wage for all time worked in individualwork weeks during the IMWL Class Period;ii.Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class for alltime worked in individual work weeks at the rate agreed to by theParties during the IWPCA Class Period;iii.Whether Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class aminimum of four (4) hours pay at the agreed upon rate on dayswhen a day or temporary laborer was contracted to work but wasnot utilized for at least four (4) hours by a third party clientcompany as required by 820 ILCS 175/30(g);iv.Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class withproper Employment Notices as required by 820 ILCS 175/10;v.Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class withproper Wage Payment and Notices as required by 820 ILCS175/30.The class representatives and the members of the class have been equallyaffected by Defendants’ failure to pay Illinois minimum wages, overtimewages, four hour “show up pay” and vacation pay and failure to provideproper Employment and Wage Payment notices;d.Given the nature of the temporary staffing industry, members of the classwill be reluctant to bring forth claims for unpaid wages and noticeviolations for fear of retaliation;e.The class representatives, class members and Defendants have acommonality of interest in the subject matter and remedies sought and the10
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:11class representatives are able to fairly and adequately represent the interestof the classes. If individual actions were required to be brought by eachmember of the class injured or affected, the result would be a multiplicityof actions creating a hardship on the class members, Defendants and theCourt.23.Therefore, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficientadjudication of this lawsuit.COUNT I(Violation of the FLSA – Minimum Wages)Plaintiffs Dean and Edwards on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees andall Plaintiffs as against Defendant EclipseSection 216(b) Collective ActionPlaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 23 as though set forth herein.24.This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendant Eclipse’s failure topay Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers at least the federally-mandated minimum wage ratefor all hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8 20, supra.25.Defendant Eclipse suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work in certain work weeksin the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.26.Plaintiffs were not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA.27.Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid not less than the federally-mandated minimumwage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.28.Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs the federally-mandated minimum wagefor all hours worked in individual work weeks.11
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:1229.Defendant Eclipse suffered and permitted other similarly situated, non-exemptlaborers to work who were likewise entitled to be paid not less than the federally-mandatedminimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.30.Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federally-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.31.Defendant Eclipse’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborersthe federally-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks was aviolation of the FLSA.32.Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers are entitled to recover unpaidminimum wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because Defendant’sviolation of the FLSA was willful.WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as follows:A.That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a collective actionpursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;B.A judgment in the amount of the difference between the federally-mandatedminimum wage rate and the hourly wage rate paid to Plaintiffs and other similarlysituated laborers.C.Liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages;D.Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the FLSA;E.Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.COUNT II(Violation of the FLSA – Minimum Wages)Plaintiff Edwards on behalf of herself and similarly situated employeesand Plaintiff Nsidibe as against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-WestSection 216(b) Collective ActionPlaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 32 as though set forth herein.12
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:1333.This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendants Mid-West andEclipse’s failure to pay Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe atleast the federally-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeksas described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8 - 20, supra.34.Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work incertain work weeks in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.35.Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were not exempt from the minimum wageprovisions of the FLSA.36.Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were entitled to be paid not less than the federally-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.37.Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe the federally-mandatedminimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.38.Defendants suffered and permitted other similarly situated, non-exempt laborersto work who were likewise entitled to be paid not less than the federally-mandated minimumwage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.39.Defendants did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federally-mandatedminimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.40.Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers andPlaintiff Nsidibe the federally-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individualwork weeks was a violation of the FLSA.41.Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe are entitledto recover unpaid minimum wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit becauseDefendants’ violation of the FLSA was willful.13
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:14WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe pray for a judgment against DefendantsEclipse and Mid-West as follows:A.That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a collective actionpursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;B.A judgment in the amount of the difference between the federally-mandatedminimum wage rate and the hourly wage rate paid to Plaintiffs and other similarlysituated laborers.C.Liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages;D.Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the FLSA;E.Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.COUNT III(Violation of the FLSA – Overtime Wages)Plaintiffs Dean and Edwards on behalf of themselves and other similarlysituated employees and all Plaintiffs as against Defendant EclipseSection 216(b) Collective ActionPlaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 41 as though set forth herein.42.This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendant Eclipse’s failure topay Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers overtime wages for all time worked in excess offorty (40) hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8- 20, supra.43.Defendant Eclipse directed Plaintiffs to work and Plaintiffs did in fact work inexcess of forty (40) hours in certain individual work weeks within in the three years prior toPlaintiffs filing this lawsuit.44.Plaintiffs were not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.45.Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid overtime wages for all time worked in excess offorty (40) hours in individual work weeks.14
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:1546.Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for all time worked inexcess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.47.Defendant likewise directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to workin excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.48.Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federally-mandated minimum wage for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual workweeks.49.Defendant Eclipse’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborersovertime wage rates for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weekswas a violation of the FLSA.50.Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers are entitled to recover unpaidminimum wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because Defendant’sviolation of the FLSA was willful.WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as follows:A.That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a collective actionpursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;B.A judgment in the amount of overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and othersimilarly situated laborers.C.Liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages;D.Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the FLSA;E.Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.COUNT IV(Violation of the FLSA – Overtime Wages)Plaintiff Edwards on behalf of herself and similarly situated employeesand Plaintiff Nsidibe as against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-WestSection 216(b) Collective ActionPlaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 50 as though set forth herein.15
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:1651.This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West’s failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and similarly situated laborers overtimewages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours worked in individual work weeks asdescribed more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8 - 20, supra.52.Defendant Eclipse directed Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work and PlaintiffsEdwards and Nsidibe did in fact work in excess of forty (40) hours in certain individual workweeks within in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.53.Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were not exempt from the overtime provisions ofthe FLSA.54.Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were entitled to be paid overtime wages for alltime worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.55.Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for alltime worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.56.Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse likewise directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to work in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.57.Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers thefederally-mandated minimum wage for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours inindividual work weeks.58.Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse’s failure to pay Plaintiff Edwards and similarlysituated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe overtime wage rates for all time worked in excess of forty(40) hours in individual work weeks was a violation of the FLSA.16
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:1759.Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe are entitledto recover unpaid minimum wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit becauseDefendants’ violation of the FLSA was willful.WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe pray for a judgment against DefendantsMid-West and Eclipse as follows:A.That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a collective actionpursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;B.A judgment in the amount of overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and othersimilarly situated laborers.C.Liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages;D.Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the FLSA;E.Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.COUNT V(Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law – Minimum Wages)Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a Class as against Defendant EclipseClass ActionPlaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 59 as though set forth herein.60.This Count arises from violation of the IMWL for Defendant Eclipse’s failure topay Plaintiffs and the Class they represent the Illinois-mandated minimum wages for all hoursworked in individual work weeks.61.Defendant Eclipse suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work in certain work weeksin the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.62.Plaintiffs were not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the IMWL.63.Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid not less than the Illinois-mandated minimumwage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.17
Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:1864.Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs the Illinois-mandated minimum wage forall hours worked in individual work weeks.65.Defendant Eclipse suffered and permitted other similarly situated, non-exemptlaborers to work who were likewise entitled to be paid not less than the Illinois-mandatedminimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.66.Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the Illinois-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.67.Defendant Eclipse’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborersthe Illinois-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks was aviolation of the IMWL.68.Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitledto recover unpaid wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit.69.The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the minimum wage claimarising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all persons who were employed byEclipse since November 18, 2008 up through and including the present and who have not beenpaid the Illinoi
6 c. has been a “day and temporary labor service agency” (hereafter “Staffing Agency”) as defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5; d
