Wiseman v. Santiva, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19 CV 1441 |
| Parties | Rosemarie C. Wiseman Plaintiff v. Santiva, Inc., d/b/a “Better Taste” and/or TASTEFULLY BETTER And/or POP BOX U.S. and/or - SANTIVA INTERNATIONAL Raymond Scott Henning as an Individual and An Employer Pursuant to the FLSA, IWPCA and IMWL Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
NOW COME the Plaintiff, Rosemarie C. Wiseman (“Plaintiff”), by and through her undersigned counsel of record, John C. Ireland, of the Law Office of John C. Ireland, Motions this Honorable Court for entry of Judgement and full relief on her claims, including damages determination, liquidated damages, statutory penalties prejudgment interest and costs, and in support of this motion states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
On November 17, 2022 the Jury in this case entered a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff Rosemarie Wiseman on Plaintiff's two claims: 1) on Plaintiff's FLSA overtime claim 2) on Plaintiff's IWPCA vacation pay claim. The Jury also found that the Defendants acted willfully, extending the damages period from two years to three years from filing of this action. This court had previously found that Defendant Henning was an Employer under the FLSA and IWPCA, thus the Jury's verdict was against all Defendants.
Plaintiff now motions this Honorable Court to enter Judgment for the Plaintiff Rosemarie Wiseman and in doing so award Plaintiff the full amount of her back pay damages as determined by the Jury, as well as liquidated damages under the FLSA, IWPCA statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and costs.
While the Jury entered a finding of liability, the Jury also determined the amount of overtime hours worked by Plaintiff but not paid. (See Verdict Form; attached to this Motion as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1). The Jury's verdict found that from February 28, 2016 to March 30, 2017 Plaintiff Rosemarie Wiseman was not paid for 450 hours of overtime and that from March 31, 2017 to January 12, 2018 Plaintiff was not paid for 200 hours of overtime. (Ex. 1). Further the parties stipulated to the following overtime rates of pay for Plaintiff: from February 28, 2016 to March 30, 2017 Plaintiff's overtime rate of pay was $30.00 per hour and for the remaining work time her rate of pay was $33.00 per hour. (See Stipulation of rates of pay; memorialized in Jury Instructions ¶ 18).
Thus Plaintiff asks the court to enter a Judgement Order, consistent with that Jury Finding, in the following specific amounts of owed wages:
March 31, 2017 to January 12, 2018 = 450 X $30 = $13,500.00
Thus Plaintiff asks this court to enter Judgement for the Plaintiff in the amount of $20,100.00 in FLSA damages against Defendants Raymond Scott Henning, SANTIVA INTERNATIONAL, POP BOX U.S. AND SANTIVA INC., D/B/A BETTER TASTE.
The Jury in this cause also found, via the proper completion of the Jury verdict form, the number of hours for vacation days owed to Plaintiff, but not paid, pursuant to the IWPCA. (See Ex 1 Pg. 4). In that verdict the Jury found that Defendants liable for 24 hours of unpaid vacation pay. Further the parties stipulated to the following rate of pay for March 31, 2017 to January 12, 2018: $22.00 per hour.
Thus Plaintiff asks the court to enter a Judgement Order in the following amount:
24 vacation hours X $22.00 per hour = $528.00
Thus Plaintiff asks this court to enter a Judgement Order for the Plaintiff in the amount of $528.00 in IWPCA damages against Defendants Raymond Scott Henning, SANTIVA INTERNATIONAL, POP BOX U.S. AND SANTIVA INC., D/B/A BETTER TASTE.
Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages under the FLSA. Under the FLSA liquidated damages are mandatory unless the district court finds that the defendant-employer was acting in good faith and reasonably believed that its conduct was consistent with the law. 29 U.S.C. § 260; Shea v. Galaxie Lumber & Constr. Co., 152 F.3d 729, 733 (7th Cir. 1998). Here the evidence presented by Defendants in the trial failed to prove either good faith nor reasonable conduct, thus a Order for liduated damages is proper and correct.
Under FLSA an employer may avoid liquidated damages only if it proves that the discriminatory actions were taken in good faith, and that it had reasonable grounds for believing that the actions did not violate the FLSA. Id. (FLSA); see also Ryl-Kuchar, 564 F.Supp.2d at 829 (FMLA). Thus Defendants must prove two elements to avoid liquidated damages 1) Defendants actions were taken in good faith AND 2) the Defendant's actions had reasonable grounds. Defendants must prove both elements and here Defendants proved neither.
Further “good faith defense” is narrowly construed, Castro v. Chicago Housing Authority, 360 F.3d 721, 730 (7th Cir. 2004), and places upon an employer a “substantial burden in showing that it acted reasonably and in good faith.” Bankston v. Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1254 (7th Cir. 1995).
Defendants cannot meet these substantial burdens of proof for two key reasons: (1) the jury's findings that they acted willfully precludes a finding of good faith; and (2) at trial, Defendants failed to prove good faith nor reasonableness in Defendants actions. As such, liquidated damages should be awarded.
At trial, the jury was required to determine if Defendants' violations of the FLSA were willful because if Defendants' conduct were not willful, certain aspects of Plaintiff's claims would have been barred by the statute of limitations. (See Ex. 1). More specifically, for the FLSA claim, the Court explained that some of Plaintiff's overtime claims would be time-barred unless the then alleged violations were willful, thereby extending statute of limitations from two to three years.
Accordingly the Court instructed the jury that willfulness was an essential element of Plaintiff's cause of action and held that with this instruction, a general verdict could be returned on those claims without a need for a separate special interrogatory on willfulness. (See Ex. 1)(see also jury instructions ¶ 24) . Ultimately the jury found in Plaintiff's favor on her FLSA claims and entered a specific finding that the violations were willful. (Ex. 1; Pg. 1)
With the jury findings of willfulness on the FLSA overtime claim, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Court is precluded from finding that Defendants acted in good faith when it decides the liquidated damages question. See, e.g. Alvarez Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150, 1166 (11th Cir. 2008) ().
While Plaintiff was unable to find a Seventh Circuit case (though a local District Court case is cited below) on this issue, the majority of circuits have reached the same conclusion as the Eleventh Circuit reached in Alvarez Perez. See Singer v. City of Waco, Tex., 324 F.3d 813, 823 (5th Cir. 2003) (affirming liquidated damages where jury found violation of the FLSA was willful, because defendant could not show it had acted in good faith); Chao v. A-One Med. Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d 908, 920 (9th Cir. 2003) (); Herman v. PaloGroup Foster Home, Inc., 183 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 1999) (); Pollis v. New Sch. for Soc. Research, 132 F.3d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 1997) (); Brinkman v. Dep't of Corr., 21 F.3d 370, 372 (10th Cir. 1994) (). Here, the jury's findings of willfulness preclude a finding of good faith and on this basis alone, Plaintiff should be awarded liquidated damages.
Likewise here locally, in this District Court, Judge Manish Shah found the same preclusive effect of willfulness and good faith in Sheils v. GateHOUSEMEDIA, INC., Case No. 12 CV 2766. (NID (Shah) April 29, 2015) (Judge Shah's Order Attached as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4; for the ready reference of this court). In this finding, after reciting most of the above Court of Appeal citations, Judge Shah found:
Here, the jury's findings of willfulness preclude a finding of good faith and on this basis alone, Plaintiff should be awarded liquidated damages. (Ex. 3 Pgs. 5-6).
Thus while not tested by the 7th Circuit at this time Judge Shah's ruling is substantial support for this court to find that Defendants are preclude from a...
To continue reading
Request your trial