18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 253 required by 820 ILCS 115/2 in order for Plaintiffs to succeed on their IWPCA claims. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. It concluded that the time spent loading and transporting equipment between Plaintiffs’ residences and vehicle was not compensable under the FLSA and the IMWL because it was “two steps removed” from the principal activity of responding to critical incidents. Id . at *8. The District Court pointed out that Plaintiffs had been able to perform off-duty critical response efforts without having their gear at home, meaning that such a practice was not indispensable. As to Plaintiffs’ IWPCA claim, in order to prevail on this claim, The District Court noted that Plaintiffs were required to establish that they were owed compensation under an employment agreement, and thus the District Court held that the record clearly indicated that Defendant did not agree to pay Plaintiffs overtime for the transportation and storage of their gear, and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the IWPCA claim as well. On Plaintiffs’ consolidated appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the District Court correctly determined that the activity of transporting, loading, and unloading equipment to and from residences, and securing equipment inside residences, was not integral and indispensable to Plaintiffs’ principal activity. As such, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Defendant was properly granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ FLSA and IMWL claims. Likewise, the Seventh Circuit held that Defendant was properly granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ IWPCA claims because there was no agreement, explicit or implicit, between the parties that Defendant would provide overtime compensation for such activities. For these reasons, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Evans, et al. v. Dart, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107225 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of correctional officers at the Cook County Department of Corrections, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay for time spent undergoing sanitizing procedures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in March of 2020, to comply with health guidelines in response to the pandemic they spent approximately 20 to 30 minutes washing and sanitizing their uniforms, persons, and personal protective equipment before and after their shifts without compensation. Defendants filed a motions to dismiss, and the Court granted the motions as to the individual Defendants and denied the motions as to Defendant Dart and Defendant Cook County. Dart argued that the parties’ collective bargaining agreement addressed the wage & hour claims, and therefore they were subject to arbitration. Specifically, Dart contended that Plaintiffs’ FLSA and Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act claims for unpaid wages concerned compensation and working conditions, which were mandatory subjects of bargaining. Further, Dart alleged that COVID-19 was a “civil emergency” under the terms of the CBA, which thereby allowed the employer the “right to take any and all actions as may be necessary to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the employer in situations of civil emergency," including "circumstances beyond the control of the employer which call for immediate action whereas it may be required to assign employees as the Employer deems necessary to carry out its duties and responsibilities." Id . at *21. The Court found that the provision in the CBA did not equate to finding that Plaintiffs could be assigned additional duties without being paid for them. Further, the Court reasoned that the CBA the provision was silent as to "decontamination activities," and did not say anything about pay for such activities. Id. As it held that the parties’ CBA did not contemplate decontamination pay, the Court concluded that the arbitration clause was not susceptible of an interpretation that covered “the asserted dispute.” Id . at *23. The Court therefore denied Dart’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative, to compel arbitration. The Court also denied the motion as to Cook County for the same reasons. However, the Court granted the other individual Defendants’ motions to dismiss based on a determination that Plaintiffs could not bring the claims against them. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Middleton, et al. v. Hempstead County, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139232 (W.D. Ark. July 27, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of detention officers employed by the Hempstead County Sheriff’s Department, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay proper overtime compensation and failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs could not show that they were not paid for all overtime hours or that their timesheets were inaccurate. The Court granted the motion. Pursuant to the FLSA, Defendant utilized the 171 hour per 28-day pay period overtime threshold for all employees. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant did not fully compensate them for compensatory time off they had earned but not used prior to January 1, 2018, when Defendant switched to a cash compensation policy for overtime hours. Defendant offered evidence in the form of chased check receipts showing that Plaintiffs received the payments. Plaintiffs contended that they did not remember receiving the checks. The Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to offer any specific facts in support of their general