Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Overtime Class-Action Certified in Northern District of Illinois Federal Court

May 4, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Every man and woman who goes to work each day has the right to be paid for his or her labor, but sometimes the companies for whom they work either fail to do so, or miscalculate the wages that they owe their employees. Those miscalculations may be intentional or they may be by mistake, but that does not change the fact that they must pay for the errors. At DiTommaso Lubin, we represent many workers who were not paid the regular and overtime wages they are owed, and our Barrington class-action overtime attorneys are always tracking new court cases in the field of wage and hour law.

One recent case from the US District Court in the Northern District of Illinois is Chavez v. Don Stoltzner Mason Contractor, Inc. The action was filed by Plaintiffs, who were former employees of Defendant and provided masonry installation services to Defendant. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant illegally adjusted their time records downward to avoid paying them the required time-and-a-half rate for the overtime that they worked. Plaintiffs also alleged that they were required to work on Saturdays without pay for an extended period as well. Eventually, Plaintiffs filed a class-action in Illinois state court alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) for unpaid overtime wages. Defendant subsequently removed the case to federal court. Plaintiffs then sought to certify an IMWL class-action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and pursue their FLSA claims individually.

The Court granted class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), holding that the numerosity requirement was met because there were between seventy and 130 potential plaintiffs, and joinder of that many actions would be impracticable. Next, the Court found Rule 23’s commonality requirement was met because Defendant had a common practice of underpaying its employees’ overtime wages, and the typicality requirement was satisfied because all potential plaintiffs’ claims were based upon the same violations of the IMWL. Because there was no evidence the named Plaintiffs had a conflict of interest with the remaining class members and their counsel was deemed competent to pursue their claims, the Court found that the class was adequately represented. Finally, in granting class certification, the Court held that there was a single common issue (Defendant’s policy of not compensating employees for overtime) overriding the litigation, and that a class-action was the superior method for resolving the claims.

Employers Should Ensure They Have Adequate Evidence Before Filing Suit Against Former Employees

May 4, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Most employers at some point will face the prospect of an employee failing to perform their job adequately. Additionally, some employees breach fiduciary duties owed the company or commit fraud and other harmful acts during the course of their employment. Hytel Group, Inc. v. Butler is a recent case out of the Appellate Court of Illinois that is just such a dispute between a Plaintiff employer and its Defendant ex-employee. Our Schaumburg business litigation attorneys discovered this decision and want to pass along the information to our readers.

In Hytel Group, Inc. v. Butler, Plaintiff Hytel Group initially hired Defendant Butler as comptroller for the company in February of 2008 and fired Butler four months later in June of that year. During Butler’s employment, Hytel’s lender, GBC Funding, filed suit in response to Hytel allegedly defaulting on several obligations under their loan agreement and Hytel’s failure to respond to the notices of default sent to them by GBC. Furthermore, GBC alleged that Hytel failed to cooperate with a restructuring officer approved by GBC pursuant to another agreement. This agreement was for GBC to refrain from exercising their rights under the loan agreement in exchange for Hytel’s cooperation with the restructuring officer. Hytel then filed the action in question in December 2008 against Defendant Butler alleging that she breached her fiduciary duty of loyalty and committed fraud when she failed to perform certain job duties because of a relationship she developed with GBC.

After Butler was fired by Hytel, but before Hytel filed suit, she filed a claim with the Illinois Department of Labor for unpaid final wages, and she moved to dismiss Hytel’s lawsuit under the Citizen Participation Act. The motion was based upon the allegation that Hytel was suing her in retaliation for filing the wage claim. Butler also moved to dismiss Hytel’s suit on procedural grounds because Hytel failed to properly state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty or for fraud. In dismissing Hytel’s claims, the trial court found that the Citizen Participation Act did apply to Butler’s wage claim, that she did not have a fiduciary relationship with Hytel, and that Hytel did not sufficiently allege all the elements of fraud. Plaintiff Hytel appealed the trial court’s ruling on the basis that Butler’s wage claim was a private dispute and the Citizen Participation Act is concerned with protecting free speech and citizen participation in government.

The Appellate Court reviewed the legislative intent behind the Citizen Participation Act and found that the state of Illinois intended the law to be construed broadly. As such, the Court found that Butler’s wage claim was an exercise of her right to petition for redress of grievances and therefore fell within the express language of the Act that protects actions taken in furtherance of a citizen’s right to petition. The Court went on to hold that the Act contains no public concern requirement and the fact that the wage claim was a private dispute did not matter. Finally, the Court found that Hytel’s suit was retaliatory in nature and upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the action and the award of attorneys fees under the Act.

This case provides a warning for business owners who file suit against former employees for a breach of duty, particularly if there is an existing wage or other employment dispute between the parties. Hytel Group, Inc. v. Butler shows that Illinois courts will dismiss such claims pursuant to the Citizen Participation Act if there evidence that the suit filed by the employer is retaliatory in nature. As such, employers should ensure that they have ample evidence to show the legitimacy of their claims before filing, as they may be on the hook for the opposing party’s attorneys fees should the court find a retaliatory impetus for the action.

NPR reports: “The Reasons for Trying Cases That Seem Clear-Cut”

May 4, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

This is a very interesting and thought provoking story.

Choosing What Business or Corporate Entity to Use When You Form an Illinois Business

May 3, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdfJ8QniDC4

An excellent overview of Illinois law describing various legal entities that a business can choose to use when it forms.

Northern District of Illinois Rules that Arbitration Clause in Employee Handbook is Enforceable

May 2, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

More and more businesses are utilizing employment agreements with new hires, and often those agreements contain arbitration dispute resolution clauses. As experienced wage and hour class action attorneys, DiTommaso Lubin is familiar with such agreements and our attorneys are always mindful of court rulings that affect this area of the law. The Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division federal court rendered a decision affecting employment arbitration agreements recently, and we wanted to make our readers and clients aware of the court’s ruling.

Brown v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc. pits a class of salaried retail, lab, and general managers against their employer Lenscrafters. Plaintiffs argued that they were non-exempt employees, and therefore were entitled to overtime compensation. The employees filed suit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) for unpaid overtime wages. In response, Defendant moved to compel one of the named plaintiffs to arbitrate her claims and stay the proceedings with respect to that plaintiff. Defendant so moved pursuant to a dispute resolution agreement contained within the employee handbook Plaintiff was given while still employed by Defendant. Defendant required Plaintiff to accept the terms of the handbook in order to continue her employment. The agreement contained a form to allow the employee to opt-out of the arbitration clause and instructions how to fill it out, but Plaintiff had failed to sign the form. Plaintiff objected to Defendant’s motion on the grounds that it was unconscionable and unenforceable.

In considering Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court evaluated the procedural and substantial unconscionability of the agreement. The Court found no procedural unconscionability because the arbitration language was “clearly set off” from the rest of the employee handbook and was easy to find by those who actually read the entire handbook. Next, the Northern District held that there was no substantive unconscionability due to the existence of the opt-out clause and the fact that the Plaintiff chose not to exercise her right to opt-out even though she signed a document stating she had read and accepted the terms of the handbook. Finally, the Court ruled that nothing in the FLSA precludes an agreement to arbitrate an FLSA claim, and granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

Video on Illinois Covenant Not to Compete Law

May 1, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLvhcNrJ3u8

The above video provides an excellent overview of Illinois non-compete contract law.

Our Chicago non-compete agreement attorneys have defended high level executives in covenant not to compete and trade secret lawsuits. A case in which our firm defended a former Motorola executive was covered in Crain’s Chicago business. You can view that article by clicking here.

Used Car Scam — Today Show Exposes Selling Stolen Cars With Cloned Vin Numbers

May 1, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS9jANqRpxQ

We bring suit for odometer fraud and other car dealer scams such as selling rebuilt wrecks as certified used cars. Super Lawyers has selected our DuPage and Cook County auto-fraud and lemon law attorneys as among the top 5% in Illinois. We only collect our fee if we win or settle your case. For a free consultation call us at our toll free number 630-333-0333 or contact us on the web by clicking here.

Car Dealer Arrested For Odometer Roll-Back Fraud

May 1, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xEM_ct6RJQ

We bring suit for odometer fraud and other car dealer scams such as selling rebuilt wrecks as certified used cars. Super Lawyers has selected our DuPage and Cook County auto-fraud and lemon law attorneys as among the top 5% in Illinois. We only collect our fee if we win or settle your case. For a free consultation call us at our toll free number 630-333-0333 or contact us on the web by clicking here.

NPR reports: “Supreme Court Hears Argument in Data Mining Case”

April 30, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

DiTommaso Lubin is a commercial law firm based in Chicago and Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois that focuses on handling all of the legal issues confronting businesses in today’s world. We represent both plaintiffs and defendants, and we have experience representing clients in matters ranging from contract disputes to fraud. Our Chicago business law attorneys have over two and half decades of experience in business lawsuits and have won favorable verdicts in “bet the business” lawsuits. DiTommaso Lubin has Chicago business litigation attorneys who can identify and understand the legal issues in a dispute, no matter how complex they may be. We will use our resources and knowledge to formulate a plan of action that will help further your interests, resolve your problems, and get you back to growing your business. Our focus with each client is to resolve the legal issues efficiently and with minimal costs, while still providing outstanding representation. If your business is being sued or you are seeking advice to stay out of court, call our Naperville business lawyers to discuss what DiTommaso Lubin can do for you. For a consultation, call 630-333-0333 or send us an email through our website.

Northern District of Illinois Federal Court Grants Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Request for Injunctive Relief in Breach of Contract Case

April 26, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

DiTommaso Lubin has successfully litigated many business disputes, and in our many years of experience we have found that contract claims are among the most contentious conflicts. Because so many of our clients deal with breach of contract issues, our Elmhurst business attorneys are always mindful of new court decisions issued in this area of the law. In fact, our lawyers just discovered one such case, Jumpfly Inc. v. Torling, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Jumpfly Inc. v. Torling pits a Plaintiff employer against two former employees who allegedly violated the non-compete agreements signed when they were hired by Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Torling started a competing pay-per-click internet advertising side-business while in Defendant’s employ, and upon discovering its employee’s side-business, fired him and sent a cease and desist letter demanding that he stop violating the non-compete. The parties eventually negotiated a settlement allowing Torling to continue his business, but the agreement prohibited him from soliciting any of Plaintiff’s employees. Torling allegedly solicited Defendant Burke — who was working for Plaintiff at the time under a similar non-compete agreement — and got him to quit his position with Plaintiff to work for Defendant Torling.

Plaintiff then filed suit against the two individuals and the new company (Windy City) that they worked for — alleging rescission of a settlement agreement, breach of contract, violations of the Lanham Act and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and intentional interference with contract based upon non-compete agreements between the parties. Plaintiff’s requested the Court to enjoin Defendants’ competitive business conduct and for monetary damages. In response, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and filed a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6).

The Court granted the motion to strike as to the breach of contract claim because the two year term of the non-compete agreement had already expired and an injunction would result in an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Court also noted that Plaintiff’s seven-month delay — after discovery of the illicit conduct — in asking for an injunction also weighed in favor of Defendants. The Court denied the motion to strike as to the statutory claims, however, because injunctive relief is provided by both laws which rendered the motion premature.

Next, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the breach of contract and intentional interference with contract claims due to pleading insufficient facts that Defendant Windy City induced either of the individual Defendants to breach their contracts with Plaintiff. In dismissing Plaintiffs conspiracy to interfere with contract, the Court applied the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine and declined to agree with Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants’ conduct fell with in an exception to the rule. Finally, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the settlement agreement breach claim as the effect of Defendants’ breaches had yet to be determined.