Jenkins v. White Castle Mgmt. Co.

Decision Date29 September 2016
Docket NumberCase No. 12-cv-7273
PartiesJIMMY JENKINS and CANDICE R. ROBERTS, Plaintiffs, v. WHITE CASTLE MANAGEMENT COMPANY d/b/a WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

Judge Joan B. Gottschall

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiffs Jimmy Jenkins ("Jenkins") and Candice R. Roberts ("Roberts") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this suit against White Castle Management Company d/b/a White Castle System, Inc. ("White Castle" or "Defendant"), alleging that White Castle violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, 207, and 216(b) ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Act ("IMWA"), 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. ("IWPCA").1 Jenkins also alleges a separate state law claim for spoliation. Before the court is White Castle's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 179] and Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 182]. Both motions are presented pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56. For the reasons discussed below,White Castle's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part and Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied.

I. BACKGOUND

On a motion for summary judgment, the entire record is considered with all reasonable inferences drawn and all factual disputes resolved in favor of the nonmovant. Turner v. J.V.D.B. & Associates, Inc., 330 F.3d 991, 994-95 (7th Cir. 2003); Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2003); Abrams v. Walker, 307 F.3d 650, 653-54 (7th Cir. 2002). The burden of establishing a lack of any genuine issue of material fact rests on the movant. Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir. 2001); Wollin v. Gondert, 192 F.3d 616, 621-22 (7th Cir. 1999). The nonmovant, however, must make a showing sufficient to establish any essential element for which the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Binz v. Brandt Construction Co., 301 F.3d 529, 532 (7th Cir. 2002); Traylor v. Brown, 295 F.3d 783, 790 (7th Cir. 2002). Also, it is not sufficient to show evidence of purportedly disputed facts if those facts are not plausible in light of the entire record. See NLFC, Inc. v. Devcom Mid-America, Inc., 45 F.3d 231, 236 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1104, 115 S.Ct. 2249, 132 L.Ed.2d 257 (1995); Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc., 950 F.2d 481, 485 (7th Cir. 1991); Collins v. Associated Pathologists, Ltd., 844 F.2d 473, 476-77 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 852, 109 S.Ct. 137, 102 L.Ed.2d 110 (1988).

Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires a party moving for summary judgment to submit "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law." Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing L.R. 56.1(a)(3)). Under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3), the nonmoving party then must submit a "concise response" to each statement of fact, "including, inthe case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B). The nonmoving party may also present a separate statement of additional facts "consisting of short numbered paragraphs," with citations to the record, that require the denial of summary judgment. See L.R. 56.1 (b)(3)(C); see also Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2008).

On January 15, 2015, this court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file additional facts. [1/15/16 Order, ECF No. 188.] The granted Plaintiffs leave to file up to 100 additional facts, per Plaintiff, to respond to White Castle's statement of facts. [Id.] However, the court noted that it would strike portions of Plaintiffs' Rule 56.1 submissions if it believes that they are excessive. [Id.] Plaintiffs failed to heed the court's warning and submitted 199 statements of additional facts, a number of which include multiple incoherent sentences. Although White Castle has not filed a motion to strike, the court is capable of determining which facts are relevant to the present motion and disregarding extraneous or improper factual statements. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Northern Building. Co., 891 F.Supp.2d 1019, 1025 (N.D. Ill. 2012). Accordingly, the court will consider only those facts that comport with the local rules. With that in mind, the court turns to the facts of this case. Except where noted, the following facts are undisputed and therefore taken as true for both parties' summary judgment motions.

White Castle is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and does business in the State of Illinois. [Def. 56.1 Statement of Facts ("SOF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 181.] It owns and operates restaurants throughout the United States, including the restaurant at issue in this case, located at 1400 E. Sibley Boulevard in Dolton, Illinois (the "Dolton location"). [Id.] The employment hierarchy of White Castle is as follows, in ascending order of seniority: TeamMember, Crew Manager, Assistant General Manager, General Manager, and District Manager. [Pls. Statement of Additional Facts ("SOAF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 193.]

White Castle maintains a cash-handling policy in its Handbook, which has been provided to all Dolton location employees, including Roberts and Jenkins. [Def. SOF ¶ 11.] The White Castle cash-handling policy states that it is improper for Team Members to repay their own drawer shortages. [Id. ¶ 12.]

Jenkins began his employment at the Dolton location on October 24, 2006. [Def. SOF ¶ 2.] Jenkins held the position of Crew Manager at the Dalton location until he transferred to another White Castle location on September 22, 2012. [Id.] Roberts began her employment at the Dolton location on July 5, 2008 as an Assistant General Manager, a position she held until June 20, 2013 when she was demoted and became a Crew Manager. [Id. ¶ 3.] Roberts held the position of Crew Manager until she was terminated on December 23, 2013. [Id.] During the relevant time period, the General Manager of the Dolton location was Sylvia Anderson ("Anderson") and the District Manager was Darrin Cotton ("Cotton"). [Pls. SOAF ¶¶ 3-4.] White Castle contends that its employees at the Dolton location are employed at-will and have no employment contract or agreement with White Castle. [Def. SOF ¶ 6.] Moreover, White Castle's Team Member Handbook provides the following:

The Company, at its sole discretion, can and may unilaterally change, delete or modify any provision contained in this manual. Nothing in this manual is intended to serve as an employment contract or a guarantee of employment for any period of time. Either the company or the Team Member may change the employment relationship at any time with or without cause.

[Id., Ex. A4 (Team Member Handbook).] Accordingly, it is White Castle's position that it does not guarantee any employee a given wage rate and can change its employees' wage rates at any time. [Id. ¶ 9.]

Roberts was typically scheduled to work 37.5 hours per week as an Assistant General Manager at the restaurant. [Def. SOF ¶ 27.] She also typically worked 37.5 hours a week when she was demoted to Crew Manager at the restaurant. [Id.] In October 2010, Plaintiffs Roberts earned $13.71 per hour. In August 2011, her wage rate increased to $13.98 per hour. In August 2012, her wage rate increased to $14.26 per hour. In June 2013, her wage rate increased to $14.47 per hour. [Id. ¶ 30.]

As a Crew Manager at White Castle's Dolton location, Jenkins estimated that he worked 35 to 37 hours per week. [Id. ¶ 28; Pls. SOAF, Ex. 18.] In September 2009, Plaintiff Jenkins earned $10.42 per hour. In April of 2010, his wage rate increased to $10.84 per hour. In March 2011, his wage rate increased to $11.15 per hour. In April 2012, his wage rate increased to $11.26 per hour. [Def. SOF ¶ 29.]

Plaintiffs allege that they and other employees of the White Castle in Dolton were compelled to pay for shortages at work, including cash drawer shortages and safe shortages. [Pls. SOAF ¶¶ 2-3.] In addition, Plaintiffs allege that White Castle committed a number of wage law violations such as forcing its employees at the Dolton location to work off the clock, "rolling time," and shaving time. [Id. ¶ 4.] Plaintiffs explain that "rolling time" is the practice of deducting hours from one week and rolling them into the next week. [Def. SOF ¶¶ 23-24.] This is done in order to avoid paying overtime in a given week. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the practices described above do not comport with White Castle's official polices found in their Team Member Handbook. [Def. SOF ¶¶ 11, 12, 14-16.] Plaintiffs, however, allege that these policies and procedures were imposed at the Dolton location by Anderson. [Id. ¶ 3.]

Jenkins alleges that his "off the clock" work claims "were typically overtime work which [he] is aware that he did not get paid because he did not receive overtime pay during thoseweeks." [Pls. SOAF ¶ 43.] At the time of his deposition, Jenkins could specifically identify only "one instance of owed overtime work." [Id.] On one occasion, Jenkins believes he was paid for 39.64 hours of work but should have been paid for 40.1, 40.2, or 40.3 hours of work. [Id.] As far as the court can discern, Jenkins alleges that he was ordered by Anderson, on a number of occasions, to "punch out" and continue working, thereby causing Jenkins to lose out on wages and possible overtime. [Id. ¶ 44.] On average, Jenkins estimates that he worked approximately 80 minutes "off the clock" per week. [Id. ¶ 45.] Because he worked many weeks at or near 40 hours [Pls. SOAF, Ex. 18 (Jenkins Payroll Records), ECF No. 193], Jenkins argues that he may have lost out on overtime compensation. [Id. ¶ 47.] Moreover, White Castle had a practice of sending out...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT