IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. Judge COMPLAINT

Transcription

1 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LARRY DEAN, SR. and WHITNEY EDWARDS, On Behalf of Themselves and Other Similarly Situated Employees, and JOHN NSIDIBE, ANTHONY DUNN, ROBERTO GUTIERREZ AND DEMETRIE COLLINS, Plaintiffs, Case No. v. Judge ECLIPSE ADVANTAGE, INC. and MID-WEST TEMP GROUP, INC., Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Larry Dean, Sr. and Whitney Edwards, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, and John Nsidibe, Anthony Dunn, Roberto Gutierrez and Demetrie Collins (collectively Plaintiffs ), for their Complaint against Defendants Eclipse Advantage, Inc. ( Eclipse ) and Mid-West Temp Group, Inc. ( Mid-West ) (collectively Defendants ), state as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs worked in a warehouse in Ellwood, Illinois that houses and distributes goods for Walmart. Defendant Eclipse provides logistical services and staffing to the Walmart warehouse. Defendant Mid-West is a staffing agency that provides additional temporary laborers to the Walmart warehouse through Defendant Eclipse and to other third party companies. When Plaintiffs and other employees of Defendants were hired, they were promised a minimum hourly wage rate, with a potential to earn more based on a productivity bonus. When Plaintiffs received their pay, they found their pay stubs did not contain information about their hours worked and wages earned required by Illinois law and that they required to determine if 1

2 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:2 they had been paid the rate promised. Instead, their pay stubs either contained incorrect or no information on weekly hours worked. For example, when Plaintiff Whitney Edward received her paycheck on July 22, 2011, her pay stub, attached as Exhibit A, indicated that she was compensated for 12 hours at the promised minimum hourly rate of $9.25 per hour. However, Plaintiff Edwards had, in fact, worked substantially more hours than those indicated on her check stub and, as a result, was compensated less than the promised minimum $9.25 per hour and was compensated less than the federal minimum wages for many hours and was not compensated overtime wages for overtime hours she worked as required by federal law. When Plaintiff Edwards sought copies of the records showing the number of hours Defendants billed and paid for her work, as required by Illinois law and which would allow her to prove the underpayment of her wages, Defendants refused to comply with her request in violation of Illinois law. In addition, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other laborers a minimum of four hours show up pay on days when they were contracted to work but not utilized for a minimum of four hours and failed to pay Plaintiffs and other laborers vacation pay that they had earned and accrued pursuant to Illinois law and Defendants had promised them to induce them to work for Defendants instead of working for other staffing agencies. Finally, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and other laborers with important information on Employment Notices and Wage Payment Notices about their job assignment and pay which the Illinois legislature found necessary to protect such at-risk workers from 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. Plaintiffs are seeking back pay for themselves and for other laborers employed by Eclipse and Mid-West and are seeking an injunction against Defendants from future violations of federal 2

3 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:3 and state wage laws. In addition, Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Defendants to end their practice of not providing accurate information in writing to temporary laborers about the terms and conditions of their employment at the beginning of assignments and when they are paid. II. NATURE OF THE CASE 2. 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 Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act, 820 ILCS 175/1 et seq. ( IDTLSA ) for Defendants : 1) failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees at least the federally and/or statemandated minimum wages for all time worked in violation of the FLSA, the IMWL and the IDTLSA; 2) failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees all earned wages at the rate agreed to by the parties in violation of the IWPCA and the IDTLSA; 3) failure to compensate Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for a minimum of four hours pay at the agreed upon rate when a day or temporary 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) failure to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees with Employment Notices as required by the IDTLSA; and 5) failure to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees with proper Wage Payment and Notices as required by the IDTLSA; 6) failure to pay Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent earned vacation pay as required by IWPCA; 7) as to Mid-West only, failure to provide bill and pay records to Plaintiff Whitney Edwards. For minimum wage and overtime claims arising under the FLSA, Plaintiffs Dean and Edwards bring this suit as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. 216(b) and their consents to act as representative Plaintiffs are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, respectively. For 3

4 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:4 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). III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. 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 Venue is proper in this judicial district as Defendants all have locations in this judicial district and a substantial part of the facts and events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this judicial district. IV. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 5. During the course of their employment, each Plaintiff: a. has handled goods that have moved in interstate commerce; b. has been an employee of Defendant Eclipse and/or Defendant Mid-West as that term is defined by the FLSA, the IMWL and the IWPCA; c. has been employed by Defendant Eclipse and/or Defendant Mid-West as a day or temporary laborer (hereafter laborer ) as that term is defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5, to provide services to third party client companies, including Walmart; and d. has worked as a laborer on behalf of Eclipse and/or Mid-West during the course of his employment. B. Defendants 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Mid-West: 4

5 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:5 a. has been a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois; b. has conducted business in Illinois and within this judicial district; c. has been engaged in the business of employing day or temporary laborers to provide services, for a fee, to third party clients companies pursuant to contracts between itself and the third party client companies; d. has been a day and temporary labor service agency (hereafter Staffing Agency ) as defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5; e. has been an enterprise as defined by in Section 3(r)(1) of the FLSA, 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 Defendant s annual gross volume of sales or business done exceeds $500,000, exclusive of excise taxes; and f. has had two or more employees who have handled goods which have moved in interstate commerce; g. has been the employer of named Plaintiff Whitney Edwards 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. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Eclipse: a. has been a Florida corporation conducting business in Illinois and within this judicial district; b. has been engaged in the business of employing day or temporary laborers to provide services, for a fee, to third party clients companies pursuant to contracts between itself and the third party client companies; 5

6 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:6 c. has been a day and temporary labor service agency (hereafter Staffing Agency ) as defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5; d. has been an enterprise as defined by in Section 3(r)(1) of the FLSA, 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 Defendant s annual gross volume of sales or business done exceeds $500,000, exclusive of excise taxes; and e. has had two or more employees who have handled goods which have moved in interstate commerce; f. 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. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. Defendant Mid-West hired several employees including named Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work on a temporary basis for Defendant Eclipse. Other employees including named Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins were hired directly by Defendant Eclipse. 9. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers have been employed by Defendants in Illinois in one or more individual work weeks and have been employed to provide services at third party client companies for a fee and pursuant to a contract between Defendants and third party clients, including Walmart. 10. Defendant Eclipse solicited Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins and other similarly situated employees, to work by promising an hourly wage rate of at least $10 an 6

7 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:7 hour and indicated to some employees that there was a possibility of earning additional compensation if certain production levels were achieved. 11. Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins and other similarly situated employees the promised hourly wage rate of at least $10 an hour and in some instances paid Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees only a piece rate that was less than $10 an hour. 12. In some cases, Defendant Eclipse compensated Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins and other similarly situated employees at an hourly rate less than the applicable Illinois and federal minimum wage rate. 13. Defendant Eclipse required Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins and similarly situated newly hired employees to attend an orientation for which they were never paid. One such orientation took place on or about June 5, Defendant Mid-West solicited Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and other similar situated employees to work by promising a wage rate of $9.25 an hour. Defendant Mid-West did not pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees the promised rate of $9.25 an hour and in some cases paid employees a rate less than the applicable Illinois and federal minimum wage rate. 15. Defendant Mid-West required Plaintiff Edwards and Nsidibe and other similarly situated new employees to attend an orientation for which they were never paid. 16. Defendant Eclipse solicited Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins and other similarly situated employees to work, in part, by promising laborers that they would earn paid vacation but Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent earned 7

8 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:8 vacation pay. See Eclipse Vacation Policy in Employee Handbook at page 14 attached hereto as Exhibit D. 17. In the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit, Defendants contracted Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers and sent them to a third party client to perform work but Plaintiffs were not utilized by the third party client or were utilized for less than four (4) hours. On such occasions, Defendants did not compensate the laborers for a minimum of four hours as required by the IDTLSA. 18. In the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with an Employment Notice 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. 19. In the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with a proper Wage Payment and Notice at the time of payment of wages in the form of an itemized statement, on the day or temporary 8

9 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:9 laborers pay stub or on a form approved by the Illinois Department of Labor, containing the name, address, and telephone number of each third party client at which the day or temporary laborer worked. 20. On or about November 2, 2011, Plaintiff Whitney Edwards requested that Defendant Mid-West provide her with bill and pay records pertaining to her employment at Mid- West and her placement at Defendant Eclipse. Defendant Mid-West failed to provide copies of the requested bill and pay records. VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 21. Plaintiffs will seek to certify the state law claims arising under the IMWL and IDTLSA for Illinois-mandated minimum wages and overtime wages (Counts V-VI); state law claims arising under the IWPCA for unpaid wages (Count VII) and arising under the IDTLSA for 4 hour minimum pay (Count VIII) and for notice violations (Counts IX X). Plaintiffs will ask the Court to determine the rights of the parties pursuant to those statutes and to direct the Defendants to account for all hours worked and wages paid to the class members during the temporality of the class. 22. Counts V through X 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 Defendants have each employed over a thousand persons as day or temporary laborers in Illinois during the IMWL, IWPCA and IDTLSA Class Periods; 9

10 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:10 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 Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class the Illinois-mandated minimum wage for all time worked in individual work weeks during the IMWL Class Period; ii. iii. iv. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class for all time worked in individual work weeks at the rate agreed to by the Parties during the IWPCA Class Period; Whether Defendants 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); Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with proper Employment Notices as required by 820 ILCS 175/10; v. Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with proper Wage Payment and Notices as required by 820 ILCS 175/30. c. The class representatives and the members of the class have been equally affected by Defendants failure to pay Illinois minimum wages, overtime wages, four hour show up pay and vacation pay and failure to provide proper Employment and Wage Payment notices; d. Given the nature of the temporary staffing industry, members of the class will be reluctant to bring forth claims for unpaid wages and notice violations for fear of retaliation; e. The class representatives, class members and Defendants have a commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedies sought and the 10

11 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:11 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, Defendants and the Court. 23. 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 Dean and Edwards on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees and all Plaintiffs as against Defendant Eclipse Section 216(b) Collective Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 23 as though set forth herein. 24. This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendant Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers at least the federally-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8-20, supra. 25. Defendant Eclipse suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work in certain work weeks in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit. 26. Plaintiffs were not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA. 27. Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid not less than the federally-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 28. Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs the federally-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 11

12 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 12 of 37 PageID #: Defendant Eclipse 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. 30. Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federallymandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 31. Defendant Eclipse s 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. 32. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers 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 pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse 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 other 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 FLSA Minimum Wages) Plaintiff Edwards on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees and Plaintiff Nsidibe as against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West Section 216(b) Collective Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 32 as though set forth herein. 12

13 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 13 of 37 PageID #: This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe at least the federally-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8-20, supra. 34. Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work in certain work weeks in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit. 35. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA. 36. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were entitled to be paid not less than the federallymandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 37. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe the federally-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 38. Defendants 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. 39. Defendants did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federally-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 40. Defendants failure to pay Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe the federally-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks was a violation of the FLSA. 41. Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe are entitled to recover unpaid minimum wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because Defendants violation of the FLSA was willful. 13

14 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe pray for a judgment against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West 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 other 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 III (Violation of the FLSA Overtime Wages) Plaintiffs Dean and Edwards on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees and all Plaintiffs as against Defendant Eclipse Section 216(b) Collective Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 41 as though set forth herein. 42. This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendant Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8-20, supra. 43. Defendant Eclipse directed Plaintiffs to work and Plaintiffs did in fact work in excess of forty (40) hours in certain individual work weeks within in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit. 44. Plaintiffs were not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. 45. Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 14

15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 15 of 37 PageID #: Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 47. Defendant likewise directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to work in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 48. Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federallymandated minimum wage for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 49. Defendant Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers overtime wage rates for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks was a violation of the FLSA. 50. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers 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 pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse 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 overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and other 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 IV (Violation of the FLSA Overtime Wages) Plaintiff Edwards on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees and Plaintiff Nsidibe as against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West Section 216(b) Collective Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 50 as though set forth herein. 15

16 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 16 of 37 PageID #: This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendants Eclipse and Mid- West s failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and similarly situated laborers overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8-20, supra. 52. Defendant Eclipse directed Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work and Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe did in fact work in excess of forty (40) hours in certain individual work weeks within in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit. 53. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. 54. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were entitled to be paid overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 55. Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 56. Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse likewise directed other similarly situated, nonexempt laborers to work in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 57. Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federally-mandated minimum wage for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 58. Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe overtime wage rates for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks was a violation of the FLSA. 16

17 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 17 of 37 PageID #: Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe are entitled to recover unpaid minimum wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because Defendants violation of the FLSA was willful. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe pray for a judgment against Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse 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 overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and other 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 V (Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law Minimum Wages) Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a Class as against Defendant Eclipse Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 59 as though set forth herein. 60. This Count arises from violation of the IMWL for Defendant Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class they represent the Illinois-mandated minimum wages for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 61. Defendant Eclipse suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work in certain work weeks in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit. 62. Plaintiffs were not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the IMWL. 63. Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid not less than the Illinois-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 17

18 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 18 of 37 PageID #: Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs the Illinois-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 65. Defendant Eclipse 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. 66. Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the Illinoismandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 67. Defendant Eclipse s 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. 68. 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. 69. 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 persons who were employed by Eclipse since November 18, 2008 up through and including the present and who have not been paid the Illinois minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks. follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as 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); 18

19 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:19 D. That the Court declare that Defendant Eclipse has violated the IMWL; E. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse 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 VI (Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law Minimum Wages) Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees as against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 69 as though set forth herein. 70. This Count arises from violation of the IMWL for Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class they represent the Illinois-mandated minimum wages for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 71. Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work in certain work weeks in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit. 72. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the IMWL. 73. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were entitled to be paid not less than the Illinoismandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 74. Defendants Edwards and Nsidibe did not pay Plaintiffs the Illinois-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 75. Defendants 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. 19

20 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 20 of 37 PageID #: Defendants did not pay other similarly situated laborers the Illinois-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks. 77. Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe 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. 78. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and members of the class are entitled to recover unpaid wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit. 79. The Class that Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe seek to represent in regard to the minimum wage claim arising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all persons who were employed by Mid-West and sent to perform work at Eclipse since November 18, 2008 up through and including the present and who have not been paid the Illinois minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the class pray for a judgment against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West 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 Edwards and Nsidibe 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 Defendants have violated the IMWL; E. That the Court enjoin Defendants 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. 20

21 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 21 of 37 PageID #:21 COUNT VII (Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law Overtime Wages) Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a Class as against Defendant Eclipse Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 79 as though set forth herein. 80. This Count arises from violation of the IMWL for Defendant Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class they represent overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 81. Defendant Eclipse directed Plaintiffs to work, and Plaintiffs did in fact work, in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit. 82. Plaintiffs were not exempt from the overtime wage provisions of the IMWL. 83. Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 84. Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 85. Defendant Eclipse directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to work and who did in fact work overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 86. Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 87. Defendant Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks was a violation of the IMWL. 21

22 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 22 of 37 PageID #: Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit. 89. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the overtime wage claim arising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all persons who were employed by Eclipse since November 18, 2008 up through and including the present and who were not compensated for overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as 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 Eclipse has violated the IMWL; E. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse 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 VIII (Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law Overtime Wages) Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe on behalf of themselves and a Class as against Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 89 as though set forth herein. 22

23 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 23 of 37 PageID #: This Count arises from violation of the IMWL for Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class they represent overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 91. Defendants directed Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work, and Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe did in fact work, in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit. 92. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were not exempt from the overtime wage provisions of the IMWL. 93. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were entitled to be paid overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 94. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 95. Defendants directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to work and who did in fact work overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 96. Defendants did not pay other similarly situated laborers overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. 97. Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and other similarly situated laborers overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks was a violation of the IMWL. 98. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and members of the class are entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit. 23

24 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 24 of 37 PageID #: The Class that Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe seek to represent in regard to the overtime wage claim arising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all persons who were employed by Mid-West and sent to perform work at Eclipse since November 18, 2008 up through and including the present and who were not compensated for overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the class pray for a judgment against Defendants 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 Edwards and Nsidibe 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 Defendants has violated the IMWL; E. That the Court enjoin Defendants 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 IX (Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act Unpaid Wages) Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and as a Class as against Defendant Eclipse Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 99 as though set forth herein This Count arises from the violation of the IWPCA for Defendant Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class they represent wages for all time worked at the rate agreed to by the parties. 24

25 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 25 of 37 PageID #: During the course of their employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs had agreements within the meaning of the IWPCA to be compensated for all hours worked at the rates agreed to by the parties Other similarly situated laborers had agreements within the meaning of the IWPCA to be compensated for all hours worked at the rates agreed to by the parties Defendant Eclipse s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class they represent for all time worked at the rate agreed to by the parties violated the IWPCA Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover owed wages for a period of ten (10) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the claim for unpaid wages arising under the IWPCA is composed of and defined as all persons who have been employed by Defendant Eclipse since November 18, 2001 up through and including the present and who have not been paid wages for all time worked at the rate agreed to by the parties. follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as 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 Plaintiffs and the Class as provided by the IWPCA; C. Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid wages as provided for in the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95; D. That the Court declare that Defendant Eclipse has violated the IWPCA; E. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse from violating the IWPCA; F. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the IWPCA, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. and the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95; 25

26 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 26 of 37 PageID #:26 G. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just. COUNT X (Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act Unpaid Wages) Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe on behalf of themselves and as a Class as against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 105 as though set forth herein This Count arises from the violation of the IWPCA for Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class they represent wages for all time worked at the rate agreed to by the parties During the course of their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe had agreements within the meaning of the IWPCA to be compensated for all hours worked at the rates agreed to by the parties Other similarly situated laborers had agreements within the meaning of the IWPCA to be compensated for all hours worked at the rates agreed to by the parties Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class they represent for all time worked at the rate agreed to by the parties violated the IWPCA Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class they represent are entitled to recover owed wages for a period of ten (10) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the claim for unpaid wages arising under the IWPCA is composed of and defined as all persons who have been employed by Mid-West to perform work for Eclipse since November 18, 2001 up through and including the present and who have not been paid wages for all time worked at the rate agreed to by the parties. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the class pray for a judgment against 26

27 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 27 of 37 PageID #:27 Defendants 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 Plaintiffs and the Class as provided by the IWPCA; C. Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid wages as provided for in the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95; D. That the Court declare that Defendants have violated the IWPCA; E. That the Court enjoin Defendants from violating the IWPCA; F. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the IWPCA, 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 XI (Violation of Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act-Four Hour Minimum Pay) Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and as a Class as against Defendants Eclipse Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 111 as though set forth herein This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse s failure to compensate Plaintiffs and a Class of laborers for a minimum of four (4) hours at the agreed upon rate when a laborer was contracted to work but was not utilized for at least four (4) hours pursuant to 820 ILCS 175/30(g) Defendant Eclipse contracted and assigned Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees to work the Walmart warehouse 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 Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers employed by were entitled to be compensated for a minimum of four (4) hours pay on days in which they were contracted by Eclipse to work at Walmart s warehouse but were not utilized for at least four (4) hours. 27

28 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 28 of 37 PageID #: Defendant Eclipse 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 (g) 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 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 Eclipse since November 18, 2008, up through and including the present and who have not been paid a minimum of four (4) hours pay on days in which they were contracted to work at a third party client s worksite but were not utilized for at least four (4) hours. follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as 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; 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 Defendant Eclipse has violated section 30(g) of the IDTLSA; E. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse from violating the IDTLSA; F. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the IWPCA, 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. 28

29 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 29 of 37 PageID #:29 COUNT XII (Violation of Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act-Four Hour Minimum Pay) Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe on behalf of themselves and as a Class as against Mid-West and Eclipse Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 117 as though set forth herein This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendants failure to compensate Plaintiffs Whitney Edwards and John Nsidibe and the Class of laborers for a minimum of four (4) hours at the agreed upon rate when a day or temporary laborer was contracted to work at a third party client company but was not utilized by the third party client company for at least four (4) hours pursuant to 820 ILCS 175/30(g) Defendant Mid-West contracted and assigned Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and other similarly situated employees to work at third party client companies, including Eclipse, 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 Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe 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 by Mid-West at third party client companies, including Eclipse, but were not utilized for at least four (4) hours Defendants failure to compensate Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class a minimum of four (4) hours pay for any day they were contracted to work violated the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS (g) Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe 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. 29

30 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 30 of 37 PageID #: The Class that Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe 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 were hired by Defendant Mid-West to perform work at third party companies, including Eclipse, since November 18, 2008, up through and including the present and who have not been paid a minimum of four (4) hours show up pay on days in which they were contracted to work at a third party client s worksite but were not utilized for at least four (4) hours. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse 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 Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class in the amount of the underpayment of the four (4) hour minimum payment requirement of section 30(g) of the IDTLSA; 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 Defendants have violated section 30(g) of the IDTLSA; E. That the Court enjoin Defendants from violating the IDTLSA; F. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the IWPCA, 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 XIII (Violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act - Employment Notices) All Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly situated laborers as against Eclipse Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 123 as though set forth herein. 30

31 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 31 of 37 PageID #: This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendant Eclipse s failure to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with proper Employment Notices as required by the IDTLSA Defendant Eclipse employed Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers and assigned them to work at certain third party client companies, including Walmart s warehouse Defendant Eclipse 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/ Defendant Eclipse 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 Defendant Eclipse violated the IDTLSA by failing to provide to Plaintiffs and Class Members Employment Notice as required by the IDTLSA 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 Eclipse since November 18, 2008 up through and including the present and who did not receive an Employment Notice at the time of dispatched and at any time the material terms on the Employment Notice changed pursuant to 820 ILCS 175/10. follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as 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; 31

32 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 32 of 37 PageID #:32 C. That the Court declare that Defendant Eclipse has violated the Employment Notice provision of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/10; D. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse 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. COUNT XIV (Violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act - Employment Notices) All Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly situated laborers as against Mid-West Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 129 as though set forth herein This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendant Mid-West s failure to provide Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and similarly situated laborers with proper Employment Notices as required by the IDTLSA Defendant Mid-West employed Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and similarly situated laborers and assigned them to work at certain third party client companies, including Walmart s warehouse Defendant Mid-West was obligated to provide Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe 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/ Defendant Mid-West failed to provide Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe 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 Defendant Mid-West violated the IDTLSA by failing to provide to Plaintiffs and Class Members Employment Notice as required by the IDTLSA. 32

33 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 33 of 37 PageID #: The Class that Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe 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 Mid-West since November 18, 2008 up through and including the present and who did not receive an Employment Notice at the time of dispatched and at any time the material terms on the Employment Notice changed pursuant to 820 ILCS 175/10. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Mid-West 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 Mid-West has violated the Employment Notice provision of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/10; D. That the Court enjoin Defendant Mid-West 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. COUNT XV (Violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act Wage Payment Notice) All Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly situated laborers as against Eclipse Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 135 as though set forth herein This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendant Eclipse s failure to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with a proper Wage Payment and Notice as required by the IDTLSA. 33

34 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 34 of 37 PageID #: Defendant Eclipse employed Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers and assigned them to work at certain third party client companies Defendant Eclipse was obligated to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with a Wage Payment and Notice showing, among other things, the number of actual hours worked at each third party client and wages paid Notices provided by Defendant Eclipse did not contain the name, address, and telephone number of each third party client at which the laborer worked Defendant Eclipse s failure to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with Wage Payment and Notices violated the IDTLSA The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the Wage Payment and Notice claim arising under the IDTLSA is composed of and defined as all persons who have been employed by Defendant Eclipse since November 18, 2008, up through and including the present and who did not receive a proper Wage Payment and Notice with the accurate information required by 820 ILCS 175/30(a). follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as 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 30(a) of the IDTLSA; C. That the Court declare that Defendant Eclipse has violated the Wage Payment and Notice provision of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/30(a); D. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse from violating the IDTLSA; E. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95; and 34

35 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 35 of 37 PageID #:35 F. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just. COUNT XVI (Violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act Wage Payment Notice) All Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly situated laborers as against Mid-West Class Action Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 141 as though set forth herein This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendant Mid-West s failure to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with a proper Wage Payment and Notice as required by the IDTLSA Defendant Mid-West employed Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers and assigned them to work at certain third party client companies Defendant Mid-West was obligated to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with a Wage Payment and Notice showing, among other things, the number of actual hours worked at each third party client and wages paid Notices provided by Defendant Mid-West did not contain the name, address, and telephone number of each third party client at which the laborer worked Defendant Mid-West failure to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with Wage Payment and Notices violated the IDTLSA The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the Wage Payment and Notice claim arising under the IDTLSA is composed of and defined as all persons who have been employed by Defendant Mid-West since November 18, 2008, up through and including the present and who did not receive a proper Wage Payment and Notice with the accurate information required by 820 ILCS 175/30(a). as follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Mid-West 35

36 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 36 of 37 PageID #:36 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 30(a) of the IDTLSA; C. That the Court declare that Defendant Mid-West has violated the Wage Payment and Notice provision of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/30(a); D. That the Court enjoin Defendant Mid-West from violating the IDTLSA; E. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action as provided by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95; and COUNT XVII (Violation of the the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act -Bill and Pay Records) (Plaintiff Edwards against Defendant Mid-West) Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 147 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendant Mid-West s failure to provide Plaintiff Whitney Edwards a copy of billing and pay records for time that she worked as required by Section 12(b). 820 ILCS 12(b) In or about November of 2011, Plaintiff Edwards made a written request to review the billing and payroll records of Defendant Mid-West related to her work for third party client companies Plaintiff Edwards delivered the written request in person to the Mid-West office where it was copied and retained by an employee of Mid-West Defendant Mid-West failed to allow Plaintiff Edwards to review the requested records within five (5) business days as required by the IDTLSA Defendant Mid-West s violation of Section 12(b) of the IDTLSA was a notice violation as defined in Section 95 of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/95. 36

37 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 37 of 37 PageID #:37 follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwards prays for a judgment against Defendant Mid-West, as A. That the Court award Plaintiff Edwards compensatory damages and an amount up to $500 for the violation of each subpart of each Section of the IDTLSA violated by Defendant Mid-West; B. That Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and costs in bring this action; and C. That the Court award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. Dated: November 18, 2011 Respectfully submitted, s/christopher J. Williams CHRISTOPHER J. WILLIAMS (ARDC # ) 77 W. Washington, Suite 1400 Chicago, Illinois (312) Attorney for Plaintiffs 37

38 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:38 EXHIBIT A

39 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:39