Soucek v. Breath of Life Prof'l Servs.
| Docket Number | 1-21-0413 |
| Decision Date | 30 December 2021 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 210413,205 N.E.3d 788,461 Ill.Dec. 700 |
| Parties | Gay Ellen SOUCEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BREATH OF LIFE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, NFP, Maria Prato and Jack Prato, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
John C. Ireland, The Law Office of John C. Ireland, 636 Spruce Street, South Elgin, IL 60177, for appellant.
Joseph R. Ziccardi, Ziccardi Law Offices, 77 West Washington Street, Suite 705, Chicago, IL 60602, for appellee.
¶ 1 After a bench trial held via videoconferencing, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants Maria and Jack Prato and Breath of Life Professional Services (Breath of Life). Plaintiff Gay Ellen Soucek appeals.
¶ 2 Plaintiff brought this action against her former employer, Breath of Life, a not-for-profit corporation, and its principals, Maria and Jack Prato1 , to recover wages under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ( 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. (West 2018)). The Pratos formed Breath of Life to run a group home for their two disabled adult children.2 Plaintiff, an overnight caregiver, worked 63 hours per week and received $200 weekly plus lodging.
¶ 3 In her complaint, plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated the Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay her both overtime pay and a minimum wage. At trial, plaintiff testified that her total damage claim against Breath of Life, including a 2% penalty for wages owed and prejudgment interest, was $88,209.75. After trial, the trial court found (1) that Breath of Life was exempt from paying overtime pay pursuant to a provision of the Minimum Wage Law; and (2) that the value of plaintiff's lodging, plus her weekly $200 salary, satisfied the Minimum Wage Law's minimum wage requirement.
¶ 4 For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
¶ 7 Plaintiff's initial and amended complaints alleged claims pursuant to the Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Act) ( 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. (West 2018)) (IWPC). Later, at the subsequent bench trial, plaintiff moved to dismiss her Act claims, and that motion was granted. Thus, her Act claims are no longer part of this suit. In addition to wages owed, plaintiff sought attorney fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages. Defendants’ answers to plaintiff's initial and amended complaints admitted that plaintiff was hired as an overnight caregiver but denied any monies were owed and did not assert any affirmative defenses.
¶ 8 On June 25, 2020, plaintiff moved for summary judgment solely on claims under the Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff argued that that she worked 63 hours every week for $200 per week and that defendants had failed to carry their burden of proof to show that they were exempt from the Minimum Wage Law's requirements to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation. Plaintiff argued that, while normally a plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove that she was entitled to the overtime payments, the employer has the burden of proof to establish that an employee falls within one of the Minimum Wage Law's exemptions. Plaintiff argued that "[d]efendants[’] basis" for exemption is "unknown," as defendants have not asserted or proved any of the Minimum Wage Law's exemptions. In particular, plaintiff argued that defendants were precluded from claiming a caregiver exemption because Breath of Life was a third-party employer.
¶ 9 On August 13, 2020, defendants responded to plaintiff's motion and cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendants responded that claiming that Breath of Life was a third-party employer contravened the statute's intent and that, even if plaintiff was entitled to overtime pay, she received more than she was entitled to, in light of the value of the lodging that she also received.
¶ 10 On October 27, 2020, the trial court entered a short one-page order stating that "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to liability and is denied as to damages." The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and set the matter "for trial for the determination of damages."
¶ 12 At the subsequent bench trial, the witnesses were the Pratos, plaintiff, and Gary Barnes, a real estate broker called by defendants as an expert regarding the value of the lodging they had provided. Since the court below found for defendants, in part, because the value of the lodging exceeded plaintiff's wages, we describe the testimony about it in detail.
¶ 14 Jack testified as follows: He is the president and executive director of defendant Breath of Life, as well as an Illinois attorney. The sole purpose of Breath of Life is to provide services to his two handicapped adult children,3 who are over the age of 40. Breath of Life employs six or seven employees; it occasionally employs high-school students on a part-time basis; and Jack and his wife handle its executive functions. Breath of Life owns a house in LaGrange Park, Illinois, that houses the Pratos’ adult children and an overnight caregiver.
¶ 15 Jack testified that plaintiff was hired as an overnight caregiver and "had no daytime duties." "[H]er job overnight was just to assist the children should they get up and need some assistance to go to the restroom or, you know, some other minor thing that needed attention and then go back to sleep."
¶ 16 Jack testified that plaintiff's salary was $200 per week, plus the value of her lodging. The lodging for the overnight caregiver was a basement apartment in the house that also housed his adult children. At the time that plaintiff was hired, the Pratos and plaintiff discussed "the value of the apartment *** utilities *** laundry," and the Pratos informed plaintiff that they "would be waiving any charges for any of her residence there." The Pratos "told her that the apartments in this area were roughly running for about $2,000 per month." While there was no employment contract, there was a lease agreement that stated that plaintiff would not be charged rent.
¶ 17 Breath of Life did not maintain a record of the hours that plaintiff worked. Jack explained that plaintiff was "employed to be upstairs with the children during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. in the morning," or 7 days a week, 9 hours a day, for a total of 63 hours per week. If plaintiff worked outside these hours, she received $12 per hour for any additional hours worked.
¶ 18 The lease agreement, which was admitted into evidence, showed that the rent per month was zero and that no security deposit was required. Jack was present when his wife and the plaintiff signed it. The lease was for an "in-law apartment" located in the basement of the LaGrange Park home. Jack testified that an expert retained by defendants estimated that the value of the apartment was between $1800 and $2200 per month. All utilities ran "through one meter." No utility or electrical bills were produced during this litigation.
¶ 19 Jack testified that, when plaintiff started her employment at 10 p.m., "the children were asleep, so she was not actually working." If they rose during the night, plaintiff would be "called to take care of whatever the need was until she could get them settled back into their beds." Jack testified that plaintiff could sleep during her shift, that he did not know how much time she spent "actually working with the client," and that "90 percent of the time," plaintiff's work ended at 7 a.m. However, there were a few instances when another worker was running late and plaintiff would work an additional half-hour or hour.
¶ 20 Defendants hired plaintiff through a Craigslist ad for a female overnight caregiver. The ad stated that the position included a private apartment with a private entrance and that all utilities, gas, electric, water, heat, air conditioning, garbage service, and laundry facilities were included.
¶ 21 Plaintiff's 2016 and 2017 W-2 forms were admitted into evidence. The forms showed that plaintiff's total wages from Breath of Life were $11,206 in 2016, and $6,154.85 in 2017.
¶ 23 Maria Prato testified that she supervised Breath of Life's employees, including plaintiff. Between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., plaintiff was required to have "lights off," make "no noise," and do no cooking. If "the girls" woke up, plaintiff needed to "prompt" them to go immediately either to the bathroom or back to bed, depending on the need. Maria testified that plaintiff was "trained on how to prompt the girls," because they "respond well" to "certain methods." However, plaintiff was not hired based on an advanced degree or any specialized area of knowledge.
¶ 24 Between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., plaintiff was required to be near the "girls," who were on the first floor. Plaintiff indicated to Maria that plaintiff was more comfortable using plaintiff's own bathroom in her basement apartment, and Maria had "no problem with that." After a brief visit to the bathroom in her basement apartment, plaintiff was expected to return swiftly to the first floor.
¶ 26 Plaintiff testified that she was hired from a Craigslist ad to be an overnight caregiver. Although the position included an apartment, she was not allowed to have visitors at her apartment. During the hiring process, the Pratos did not inform her of the value of the lodging being provided or what the costs were to the Pratos to provide this lodging. The Pratos did inform her that a fingerprint test was required for the position. After her fingerprints were taken and the Pratos told her that she had cleared the security test, she was permitted to start work. Her first day of employment was September 22, 2015, and her employment ended on July 27, 2017.
¶ 27 Plaintiff testified that, when her shift began at 10 p.m., the "two adult disabled women" were supposed to be in bed asleep, "but that wasn't always the...
To continue reading
Request your trial