Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
STARLET BAKER , CHARLES LOVETT,
and FREDRICK JONES, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ELITE STAFFING, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 CV 3246

Judge Leinenweber

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Starlet Baker, Charles Lovett Fredrick Jones, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown (collectively Plaintiffs), for their
Complaint against Elite Staffing, Inc., (hereafter "Defendant"), state as follows:
I.
1.

NATURE OF THE CASE

This 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 Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. (IWPCA) and the IDTLSA
for: 1) Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers at the least the
federally and state-mandated minimum wage for all time worked in violation of the FLSA, the
IMWL and the IDTLSA; 2) Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated laborers in violation of the FLSA, the IMWL and the IDTLSA 3) Defendant's
failure to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers for a minimum of four hours of
pay at the agreed upon rate when a laborer was contracted to work for a third party client
company and was utilized for less than four hours in violation of the IDTLSA; 4) Defendant's
failure to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers with Employment Notices as

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:13

required by the IDTLSA. For minimum wage and overtime claims arising under the FLSA,
Plaintiffs bring this suit as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C.
216(b). For claims arising under the IMWL, the IWPCA and the IDTLSA, Plaintiffs seek to
certify these claims as class actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b). Plaintiffs
further seek an injunction against Defendant from future violations of federal and state wage laws.
III.
2.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This 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. Venue is proper in this judicial district as the facts
and events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this judicial district.
IV.
A.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs
3.

During the course of his employment, Plaintiff Starlet Baker:

a.

has handled goods that have moved in interstate commerce;

b.

has been an employee of Defendant in Illinois as that term is defined by

the FLSA, the IMWL and the IWPCA;

c.

has been employed by Defendant as a day or temporary laborer

(hereafter laborer) as that term is defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS
175/5; and

d.

has worked as a laborer on behalf of Defendant at third party client

companies including but not limited to Menasha in Hodgkins, Illinois.

4.

During the course of his employment, Plaintiff Lovett:

a.

has handled goods that have moved in interstate commerce;

b.

has been an employee of Defendant in Illinois as that term is defined by

the FLSA, the IMWL and the IWPCA;

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:14

c.

has been employed by Defendant as a day or temporary laborer

(hereafter laborer) as that term is defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS
175/5; and

d.

has worked as a laborer on behalf of Defendant at third party client

companies including but not limited to Menasha in Hodgkins, Illinois,
Peacock Engineering in Geneva, Illinois, and others.

5.

During the course of his employment, Plaintiff Jones:

a.

has handled goods that have moved in interstate commerce;

b.

has been an employee of Defendant in Illinois as that term is defined by

the FLSA, the IMWL and the IWPCA;

c.

has been employed by Defendant as a day or temporary laborer

(hereafter laborer) as that term is defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS
175/5; and

d.

has worked as a laborer on behalf of Defendant at third party client

companies including but not limited to Menasha Packaging in Hodgkins,
Illinois, and Peacock Engineering in Bolingbrook, Illinois, Peacock
Engineering in Romeoville Illinois, and Peacock Engineering in Geneva,
Illinois.

B.

Defendant
6.

Within the three years prior to the filing of this matter, Defendant:
a.

has been a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois and
has been located in and conducted business within this judicial district

b.

has been engaged in the business of employing day or temporary laborers

to provide services, for a fee, to multiple client companies;

c.

has been a day and temporary labor service agency (hereafter Staffing
Agency) as defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5;

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:15

d.

has been an enterprise as defined by in Section 3(r)(1) of the FSLA, 29

U.S.C. 203(r)(1), and is an enterprise engaged in commerce, or in the
production of goods for commerce, within the meaning of Section
3(s)(1)(A) and Defendants annual gross volume of sales or business done
exceeds $500,000, exclusive of excise taxes; and

e.

has been Plaintiffs employer as that term is defined by the FLSA, 29

U.S.C. 203(d), the IMWL, 820 ILCS 105/3(c) and the IWPCA, 820 ILCS
115/1 et seq.

V.
7.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

During all relevant times, Defendant has contracted with third party client

companies such as Peacock and Menasha to provide laborers, for a fee and pursuant to a
contract, to perform work at these third party client companies' facilities such as assembling
and packaging products.
8.

Defendant is in the business of recruiting temporary laborers and selling the

labor of such laborers for a fee.

9.

Laborers who were hired by Defendant were not compensated for all time

worked. Among the schemes engaged in by Defendant to deny their wages were:
a.

Denying laborers a full half hour break while deducting a full half
hour break from employee's wages;

b.

Requiring laborers to clock out when switching between different work

lines during their work day, without compensation for time spent
transferring to a different work line ;

c.

Requiring laborers to report for work up to half an hour before being

allowed to clock in;

d.

Contracting Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers as day laborers, then

transporting laborers to multiple third party client companies in a single

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:16

day without compensation for the time he was transported by Defendant

for Defendants benefit of attempting to contract Plaintiffs services to its
third party client companies for a fee.
10.

As a result of Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly

situated laborers for all compensable time, in many work weeks, Plaintiffs and similarly
situated laborers were compensated less than the Illinois minimum wage for all compensable
time.
11.

As a result of Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly

situated laborers for all compensable time, in many work weeks, Plaintiffs and similarly
situated laborers were compensated less than the federal minimum wage for all compensable
time.
12.

As a result of Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly

situated laborers for all compensable time, in many work weeks, Plaintiffs and similarly
situated laborers were not compensated at time and a half their regular rate for all time
worked in excess of forty hour per week during individual work weeks.
13.

Within the three years prior to the filing of this matter, Defendant regularly

contracted more laborers to work at its third party client companies than were utilized by
said third party client companies.
14.

Within the three years prior to the filing of this matter, Defendant has had a

statewide practice of not compensating Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers who are
contracted to work at third party client companies across Illinois and not utilized for a
minimum of four hours for four hour minimum pay.
15.

In the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit, Defendant failed to

provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with an Employment Notice as required by

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:17

the IDTLSA at the time of dispatch to third party clients in the form of a statement containing
the following items on a form approved 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 temporary
laborer;

e.

terms of transportation; and

f.

whether a meal or equipment, or both, are provided, either by the day and
temporary labor service agency or the third party client, and the cost of the
meal and equipment, if any.

16.

Defendants failure to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with the

required Employment Notice (820 ILCS 175/10) and Wage Payment and Notice (820 ILCS
175/30) has denied Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with certain information related to
their employment which the Illinois legislature has determined is critical to protect the rights of
day or temporary laborers. The Illinois legislature found that such at-risk workers are particularly
vulnerable to abuse of their labor rights, including unpaid wages, failure to pay for all hours
worked, minimum wage and overtime violations, and unlawful deduction from pay for meals,
transportation, equipment and other items. 820 ILCS 175/2.
VI.
17.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiffs will seek to certify their state law claims arising under the IMWL for

Illinois-mandated minimum wages (Count II) and for overtime wages (Count IV); and arising
under the IDTLSA for 4 hour minimum pay (Count V); and for Defendants notice violations
(Counts VI ). Plaintiffs will ask the Court to determine the rights of the parties pursuant to those
6

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:18

statutes and to direct the Defendant to account for all hours worked and wages paid to the class
members during the temporality of the class.
18.

Counts II, IV and Counts V through VI 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 at
this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant has employed
over a thousand persons as day or temporary laborers in Illinois during the
IMWL, and IDTLSA Class Periods;

b.

There are questions of fact or law common to the class, which common
questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members. These common questions of law and fact include, without
limitation:
(i)
Whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class the
Illinois-mandated minimum wage for all time worked in individual work
weeks during the IMWL and IDTLSA Class Periods;
(ii)
Whether Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class a
minimum of four (4) hours pay at the agreed upon rate on days when a day
or temporary laborer was contracted to work but was not utilized for at
least four (4) hours by a third party client company as required by 820
ILCS 175/30(g);
(iii)
Whether Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with
proper Employment Notices as required by 820 ILCS 175/10;
(iv)
Whether Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with
proper Wage Payment Notices as required by 820 ILCS 175/30;

c.

The class representatives and the members of the class have been equally
affected by Defendant's failure to pay Illinois minimum wages, overtime
wages and failure to provide proper notices;

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:19

d.

Given the nature of the staffing industry, members of the class will be
reluctant to bring forth claims for unpaid wages and notices violations for
fear of retaliation;

e.

The class representatives, class members and Defendant have a

commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedies sought and the
class representatives are able to fairly and adequately represent the interest
of the classes. If individual actions were required to be brought by each
member of the class injured or affected, the result would be a multiplicity
of actions creating a hardship on the class members, Defendant and the
Court.

19.

Therefore, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this lawsuit.

COUNT I
Violation of the FLSA Minimum Wages
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees assigned to
Peacock, and Menasha
Section 216(b) Collective Action
Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 19 as though set forth herein.
20.

This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendants failure to pay

Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers not less than the federally-mandated minimum wage rate
for all hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 9 through
11, supra.
21.

Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work in certain work weeks in the

three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.

22.

Plaintiffs were not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA.

23.

Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid not less than the federally-mandated minimum

wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:20

24.

Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs the federally-mandated minimum wage for all

hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 9 through 11,
supra.
25.

Defendant suffered and permitted other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to

work who were likewise entitled to be paid not less than the federally-mandated minimum wage
for all hours worked in individual work weeks.
26.

Defendant did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federally-mandated

minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in
paragraphs 9 through 11, supra.
27.

Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers the

federally-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks was a
violation of the FLSA.
28.

Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to recover unpaid minimum wages for up to

three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because Defendant's violation of the FLSA was
willful.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class they represent pray for a judgment against
Defendant as follows:
A.

That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA.

B.

A judgment in the amount of the difference between the federally-mandated

minimum wage rate and the hourly wage rate paid to Plaintiffs and similarly
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 II
(Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law Minimum Wages)
9

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:21

Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees assigned to

Peacock and Menasha
Class Action
Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 28 as though set forth herein.
29.

This Count arises from a violation of the IMWL for Defendant's failure to pay

Plaintiffs and the Class they represent the Illinois-mandated minimum wages for all hours
worked in individual work weeks.
30.

Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work in certain work weeks in the

three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.

31.

Plaintiffs were not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the IMWL.

32.

Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid not less than the Illinois-mandated minimum

wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.

33.

Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs the Illinois-mandated minimum wage for all

hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 9 through 10,
supra.
34.

Defendant suffered and permitted other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to

work who were likewise entitled to be paid not less than the Illinois-mandated minimum wage
for all hours worked in individual work weeks.
35.

Defendant did not pay other similarly situated laborers the Illinois-mandated

minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in
paragraphs 9 through 10, supra.
36.

Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers the

Illinois-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks was a
violation of the IMWL.

10

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:22

37.

Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled

to recover unpaid wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit.
38.

The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the minimum wage claim

arising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all laborers who have been contracted by
Defendant to perform work in an hourly position at Peacock and Menasha facilities in Illinois
from April 14, 2012 and up through the date of filing of this lawsuit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant as follows:
A.

That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b);

B.

A judgment in the amount of all back wages due to Plaintiffs and the Class as
provided by the IMWL;

C.

Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid Illinois mandated minimum

wages as provided for in the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95 or, in the alternative,
statutory damages pursuant to the formula set forth in 820 ILCS 105/12(a);

D.

That the Court declare that Defendant violated the IMWL;

E.

That the Court enjoin Defendant from violating the IMWL;

F.

Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the IMWL, 820
ILCS 105/1 et seq. and the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95;

G.

Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
COUNT III
Violation of the FLSA Overtime Wages
Plaintiff Jones on behalf of himself and a class
Section 216(b) Collective Action

Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 38 as though set forth herein.
39.

This Count arises from Defendants violation of the FLSA for Defendants failure

to pay Plaintiff Jones and other persons similarly situated one and a half times their regular rate
of pay for all compensable time in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks as
described more fully in paragraphs 9, 12, supra.
11

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:23

40.

Defendant directed Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work in excess of forty (40)

hours in individual work weeks in the three years prior to Plaintiff filing this lawsuit.
41.

Plaintiff was not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

42.

Plaintiff was entitled to be paid overtime wages for all compensable time in

excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

43.

Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime wages for all compensable time in

excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

44.

Defendant likewise directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to work

in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks and who were likewise entitled to be paid
overtime wages for all compensable time in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work
weeks.
45.

Defendant did not pay other persons similarly situated overtime wages for all

compensable time in excess of forty (40) hours worked in individual work weeks.
46.

Defendants failure to pay Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated the

overtime wages for all compensable time in excess of forty (40) hours worked in individual
work weeks was a violation of the FLSA.
47.

Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated are entitled to recover unpaid

overtime wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because Defendants
violation of the FLSA was willful.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendant as follows:
A.

That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;

B.

A judgment in the amount of unpaid overtime wages for all compensable time by
Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated in excess of forty (40) hours in
individual work weeks.

12

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:24

C.

Liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid overtime wages;

D.

That the Court declare that Defendant has violated the FLSA;

E.

That the Court enjoin Defendant from violating the FLSA;

F.

Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the FLSA; and

G.

Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT VI
(Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law Overtime Wages)
Plaintiff Jones on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees assigned to
Peacock and Menasha
Class Action
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 47 as though set forth herein.
48.

This Count arises from Defendants violation of the IMWL for Defendants

failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class she represents overtime wages for all compensable time in
excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 9, 12,
supra.
49.

Defendant directed Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work in excess of forty (40)

hours in individual work weeks in the three years prior to Plaintiff filing this lawsuit.
50.

Plaintiff was not exempt from the overtime provisions of the IMWL.

51.

Plaintiff was entitled to be paid overtime wages for all compensable time in

excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

52.

Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime wages for all compensable time in

excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

53.

Defendant likewise directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to work

in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks and who were likewise entitled to be paid
overtime wages for all compensable time in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

13

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:25

54.

Defendant did not pay other persons similarly situated the overtime wages for all

compensable time in excess of forty (40) hours worked in individual work weeks.
55.

Defendants failure to pay Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated overtime

wages for all compensable time in individual work weeks was a violation of the IMWL.
56.

Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to

recover unpaid overtime wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit.
57.

The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the minimum wage claim

arising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all laborers who have been contracted by
Defendant to perform work in an hourly position at Peacock and Menasha facilities in Illinois
from April 14, 2012 and up through the date of filing of this lawsuit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant as follows:
A.

That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b);

B.

A judgment in the amount of all back wages due to Plaintiff and the Class as
provided by the IMWL;

C.

Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid Illinois mandated overtime

wages as provided for in the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95 or, in the alternative,
statutory damages pursuant to the formula set forth in 820 ILCS 105/12(a);

D.

That the Court declare that Defendant has violated the IMWL;

E.

That the Court enjoin Defendant from violating the IMWL;

F.

Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the IMWL, 820
ILCS 105/1 et seq. and the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95; and

G.

Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT V
(Violation of Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act-Four Hour Minimum Pay)
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees of Defendant
statewide
Class Action

14

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:26

Plaintiff incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57 as though set forth herein.
58.

This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendant's failure to

compensate Plaintiffs and the Class of laborers for a minimum of four (4) hours at their regular
rate of pay when a laborer was contracted to work at a third party client company but was not
utilized for at least four (4) hours pursuant to 820 ILCS 175/30(g).
59.

Defendant contracted and assigned Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers

to work for a period of less than four (4) hours in single work days, but did not pay them a
minimum of four (4) hours pay as described more fully in paragraphs 13 and 14, supra.
60.

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers were entitled to be compensated for

a minimum of four (4) hours pay on days in which they were contracted to work at a third party
clients worksite but were not utilized for at least four (4) hours.
61.

Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class a minimum of four (4)

hours pay for any day they were contracted to work violated the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/30(g).
62.

Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover four (4) hour minimum pay for any

days they were not compensated a minimum of four (4) hours in the three (3) years prior to the
filing of this lawsuit.
63.

The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the claim for the unpaid

minimum four (4) hour show up pay arising under the IDTLSA is composed of and defined as all
persons who have been employed by Defendant in an hourly position in since April 14, 2012, up
through and including the date of filing of this lawsuit and who were contracted to work at a
third party client company in Illinois but were not utilized for at least four (4) hours.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant as follows:
A.

That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b);

B.

A judgment for Plaintiffs and the Class in the amount of the underpayment of the
four (4) hour minimum payment requirement of section 30(g) of the IDTLSA;

15

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:27

C.

Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of the underpayment of the

four (4) hour minimum payment requirement of section 30(g) of the IDTLSA;

D.

That the Court declare that Staffing Agency Defendant has violated section 30(g)
of the IDTLSA;

E.

That the Court enjoin Defendant from violating the IDTLSA;

F.

Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the IDTLSA,
820 ILCS 175/95; and

G.

Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT VI
(Violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act - Employment Notices)
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees of Defendant
statewide
Class Action
Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 63 as though set forth herein.
64.

This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendants failure to

provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with a proper Employment Notices as required
by the IDTLSA.
65.

Defendant employed Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers and assigned them

to work at third party client companies.

66.

Defendant was obligated to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with an Employment

Notice at the time of each laborer was initially dispatched to work and any time the material
terms listed on the Employment Notice changed. 820 ILCS 175/10.
67.

Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with Employment Notices at

the time of dispatch to third party clients or at the time any terms listed on an Employment
Notice changed as required by the IDTLSA.
68.

Defendant violated the IDTLSA by failing to provide to Plaintiffs and Class

Members Employment Notice as required by the IDTLSA.

16

Case: 1:15-cv-03246 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/15/15 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:28

69.

The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the Employment Notice

claim arising under the IDTLSA is composed of and defined as all persons who have been
employed by Defendant to work at third party client companies in an hourly position since April
14, 2012, up through and including the date of filing of this lawsuit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant as follows:
A.

That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b);

B.

That the Court award Plaintiff and the Class compensatory damages and statutory
damages of up to $500 for each violation of Section 10 of the IDTLSA;

C.

That the Court declare that Defendant has violated the Employment Notice
provision of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/10;

D.

That the Court enjoin Defendant from violating the IDTLSA;

E.

Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the IDTLSA,
820 ILCS 175/95; and

F.

Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 15, 2015
s/Christopher J. Williams
CHRISTOPHER J. WILLIAMS
ALVAR AYALA
Workers Law Office, PC
53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 795-9121
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17