Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

As Chicago employee rights attorneys, we were interested to see what may have been the first unpaid overtime filing of 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Harris v. Cheddar’s Casual Café, No. 20-cv-0045 (N.D. Ill.) was filed Jan. 5 by three former servers and bartenders who seek to certify a class of current and former employees denied overtime and tips by the Cheddar’s Casual Café chain of restaurants. Plaintiffs Donny Harris, Keith McKinstery and Shaniqua Bell allege that managers at a Cheddar’s in Boilingbrook, Ill shaved time off their timecards and required them to work off the clock in order to avoid paying overtime. They also allege that their tips were diverted to a tip pool that illegally included non-tipped workers.

The complaint in the case says plaintiffs, and other similarly situated workers, were required to clock in and out for their shifts using the chain’s computerized system. They allege that the restaurant, and manager Solomon Tristan, illegally manipulated the timesheets created by that system to remove hours. They also allege that they were encouraged to work before clocking in and after clocking out, further denying them overtime. Furthermore, the plaintiffs say, they were compelled to participate in a tip pool that included the restaurant’s “quality assurance” workers, who they say are not tipped employees. Under federal law, employers may not pay tipped employees less than minimum wage unless they are allowed to keep all their tips, or contribute only to a legal tip pool. Thus, the complaint said, Cheddar’s policies violate the Fair Labor Standards Act.

At Nationwide Consumer Rights, our Wheaton, Ill. overtime attorneys see cases like this frequently. Hourly employees such as waiters and bartenders are regular targets for employers who prefer not to pay all of the wages they owe, and even sometimes to skim their earned tips to pay other employees. This behavior relies on employees to stay quiet, either because they don’t know they have rights or because they’re afraid of punishment for speaking up. However, federal and state law is very clear employees must be compensated for all of their time at work, and paid time and a half for any time over 40 hours in a week. Failure to follow these basic requirements exposes companies to lawsuits seeking all of the back pay owed, attorney fees and any other costs incurred. In cases of egregious law-breaking, courts may also require employers to pay punitive damages -- money intended to penalize willful law-breaking.

Continue reading "Lawsuit Alleges Illinois Restaurant Shaved Hours From Servers’ Timecards" »

Our Oak Brook, Ill. employee rights attorneys were very interested to see a recent labor lawsuit against telecom giant AT&T. Bloomberg News reported Dec. 17 that two separate units of the company were hit with simultaneous lawsuits Dec. 16 over unpaid overtime. The plaintiffs seek to represent more than 5,000 current and former workers who they say were misclassified as low-level managers, so AT&T would not have to pay them overtime. Each of the two lawsuits seeks $500 million in unpaid overtime, as well as compensation for rest and meal breaks that were allegedly not granted.

According to the article, the employees were classified as “Level One” managers, even though their job duties didn’t meet the federal definition of management positions. They say they worked as many as 60 hours a week, or 10 to 14 hours a day, and were expected to be available on weekends, all without overtime pay. In fact, the Atlanta plaintiffs claim that they were eligible for overtime when they worked for BellSouth, before its acquisition by AT&T. Joe Luque, a lead plaintiff in the San Francisco litigation, said in a press release that he was chewed out when he tried to exercise managerial duties by firing a poor-performing employee. The suits come shortly after a Connecticut federal court certified a class of AT&T workers with similar complaints, in a suit filed by the same law firm.

As Chicago overtime rights lawyers, we’re pleased to see workers standing up for themselves against such a large employer. The right to overtime pay is provided by a federal law called the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires time and a half for any work above 40 hours a week. This can be very expensive -- so some companies, instead of hiring extra personnel to handle the work, look for ways to break the law. Mis-classifying employees as “managers” with no real management duties is one way to end-run around workers’ rights. Other employers may pressure their employees to work off the clock; work through legally required rest and meal breaks; or shift the extra hours to another week. Unfortunately, far too many workers don’t understand their rights, or are afraid of losing their jobs if they stand up for themselves.

Continue reading "Employees File Proposed Class Action Accusing AT&T of Misclassifying Them -- Our Chicago Overtime Attorneys Bring Class Action Wage Lawsuits in Illinois and Across the Country" »

Our Illinois overtime rights lawyers were interested to see a recent ruling on unpaid overtime from the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In Musch v. Domtar Industries, No. 08-4305 (7th Cir. Nov. 25, 2009), Alan Musch and his colleagues were maintenance workers at two Wisconsin paper mills owned by Domtar Industries. In their lawsuit, they say their job routinely exposes them to dangerous chemicals, requiring them to put on special protective gear before shifts and to shower and change after. They are not paid for the time it takes to do those things, however. They sued for unpaid overtime pay for the showering and changing time, as well as for time spent shaving, a requirement under Domtar company policy.

After the case was filed, Domtar moved for summary judgment dismissing the case. It argued that company policy says workers should shower and change immediately after exposure to a hazardous chemical, even if that means the employee goes into overtime. Because it has that policy, the company argued, overtime compensation was inappropriate. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment for Domtar. After the court declined to reconsider, the plaintiffs appealed both rulings. They argued that the district court missed or ignored evidence showing that chemicals actually were on workers’ skin; that is, they do not shower because they merely think they might have the chemicals. Thus, changing and showering time is appropriate for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In its analysis, the Seventh Circuit started by noting that the FLSA and Wisconsin law both require employers to pay for all of the work employees do. However, federal law makes a distinction between work and preliminary or postliminary activities. Changing and washing is ordinarily considered preliminary or postliminary, the court wrote, but may sometimes be considered part of the job if it’s “integral” and “indispensable” to the job. The plaintiffs argued evidence showed that they didn’t always realize there were chemicals on their skin until the end of shifts, meaning showering after shifts would be following the company’s stated policy.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed. The plaintiffs’ evidence showed that showers were sometimes necessary, it wrote, but not that the Domtar policy of showering after any exposure was insufficient. Furthermore, the court said, employees admitted to bringing work clothes home to wash them, suggesting that they don’t believe the chemical exposure is that serious. Finally, employees are free to seek overtime under the existing company policy when they are required to shower and change, the Seventh said. Because these are all “normal conditions” under the meaning of the FLSA, the post-shift changing and showering is postliminary activity, not an essential job requirement, the court wrote. Thus, it upheld the trial court’s orders.

Continue reading "Employees Not Entitled to Compensation for Showering Time After Shift" »

In our work as Illinois and nationwide wage and hour attorneys, we frequently see workers who have been misclassified as exempt from overtime. Whether this was an honest mistake or an intentional attempt to save money, it effectively “steals” wages from the misclassified employees. DiTommaso-Lubin stands up for the rights of workers in Chicago, Illinois and throughout the country who are victims of overtime wage theft, including misclassified employees as well as those pressured to work off the clock; lie on timesheets; or simply not paid an overtime rate. Our Oak Brook, Waukegan, Elgin, Warrenville, Lisle, Wheaton, Northbrook, Aurora, Elgin, Evanston, Joliet and Chicago unpaid overtime lawyers handle both individual and class action employment cases. Based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Ill., our Chicago overtime lawyers represent clients throughout Illinois, the Midwest and the United States.

In our work as Illinois and nationwide wage and hour attorneys, we frequently see workers who have been misclassified as exempt from overtime. Whether this was an honest mistake or an intentional attempt to save money, it effectively “steals” wages from the misclassified employees. DiTommaso-Lubin stands up for the rights of workers in Chicago, Illinois and throughout the country who are victims of overtime wage theft, including misclassified employees as well as those pressured to work off the clock; lie on timesheets; or simply not paid an overtime rate. Our Oak Brook, Waukegan, Wheaton, Northbrook, Aurora, Elgin, Evanston, Joliet and Chicago unpaid overtime lawyers handle both individual and class action employment cases. Based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Ill., we represent clients throughout Illinois, the Midwest and the United States.

Our Chicago overtime rights lawyers were interested in a recent wage and hour decision out of the Second Circuit. In Whalen v. J. P. Morgan Chase Co., No. 08-4092 (2nd. Cir. Nov. 20, 2009), a group of loan underwriters sued J.P. Morgan Chase, their employer, for unpaid overtime in a proposed class action. The plaintiffs contended that they were misclassified as administrative employees, because their duties did not meet the federal Department of Labor’s definition of administrative duties. The district court in New York disagreed and granted summary judgment for Chase. But the Second Circuit reversed that judgment, saying loan underwriters cannot be exempt administrative employees because their work furthered Chase’s core business of making loans, rather than helping to run or direct the company.

For four years, plaintiff Andrew Whalen worked for Chase as an underwriter. His job was to evaluate whether to grant loans to individuals, using detailed guidelines provided by Chase. Some underwriters were sometimes permitted to deviate from these standards. Whalen contended that he frequently worked more than 40 hours a week, but Chase classified him as an administrative employee exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Whalen eventually sued for a declaratory judgment that Chase violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime, but Chase prevailed on cross-motions for summary judgment. Whalen appealed.

The Second started by looking at the definition of administrative employees. The federal Department of Labor says administrative work is “directly related to management policies or general business operations” and “customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment.” Using a variety of documents from the Department on the financial services industry, the court drew a distinction between exempt employees with advisory duties and non-exempt employees who carry out the employer’s day-to-day operations.

Whalen’s job was to sell loans according to Chase’s detailed standards, the court wrote, not to advise customers on which loans to get. This puts the job firmly on the “production” side of Chase’s business, the court wrote, as distinct from management duties or “general business operations” such as human resources. Furthermore, the Second wrote, Chase itself referred to underwriters’ duties as “production” work. In doing so, the court drew a distinction between “production” and “administrative” work supported by its own past decision in Reich v. State of New York, 3 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1993) as well as by precedents in the Ninth, Third and First Circuits. Whalen’s job did not met the management/general business operations test set forth by the Department of Labor, the court wrote, which is enough to conclude that he was not a bona fide administrative employee. Thus, the Second Circuit reversed the trial court’s summary judgment decision.

Continue reading "Loan Underwriters Are ‘Production’ Employees Eligible for Overtime, Court Rules" »