The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Erin Holowicki, )
Plaintiff, ) No. 18 C 7337
v. )
) Judge Ronald A. Guzmán
Lakefront Restaurant Inc. d/b/a )
Stella’s Diner, et al., )
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss Count II of the Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”) [31] is denied.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff, an employee of Stella’s Diner, brings various wage-payment violation claims
against Defendants. In the instant motion, Defendants move to dismiss Count II of the SAC,
which alleges that Defendants violated the Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act (“IWPCA”) by
agreeing to pay Plaintiff $6.75 per hour but only paying her for four hours per shift.
“[A]n IWPCA claim will fail unless the plaintiff shows that the defendants owe her
compensation pursuant to an employment agreement, which can manifest based on mutual assent
and need not involve a written contract.” Brown v. DS Servs. of Am., Inc., 246 F. Supp. 3d 1206,
1222 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “An agreement to pay what is already required by law is insufficient to
state a claim under the IWPCA.” Dougherty v. City of Chi., No. 15 C 10975, 2017 WL 5455374,
at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2017).
Plaintiff alleges that:
111. Defendants agreed to pay a rate of pay to the Plaintiff; the agreement
for Plaintiff was to pay $6.75 per hour, yet by only paying 4 hours per
shift, Defendants violated that agreement, thereby paying less than the
agreed rate of pay.
112. This Agreement is both an Oral Agreement, as Defendants stated to
Plaintiff that her rate of pay would be $6.75 per hour, and a Written
Agreement, as Plaintiff’s paychecks (and likely other Defendant
documents such as payroll records) list Plaintiff’s rate of pay as $6.75 per
hour.
(SAC, Dkt. # 26, ¶¶ 111-12) (emphasis in original).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claim cannot stand because she is simply alleging a
minimum-wage violation, i.e., that she was not paid for four hours of her shift, which is a
violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the
claim is based on Defendants’ failure to pay the agreed-upon $6.75 per hour, not a failure to pay
the minimum wage per hour worked.’
The Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a claim under the IWPCA. In the event the
evidence revealed during discovery demonstrates that Plaintiffs claim is actually just a claim for
failure to pay the minimum wage, then Defendants may renew their argument on summary
judgment or at trial; for now, the claim remains.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II is denied.
Hho A Exo
Date: May 14, 2019 " qo *
Ronald A. Guzman
United States District Judge
' The parties appear to disagree on what the Illinois hourly minimum wage was at the
applicable time, but the Court need not resolve this discrepancy as it would require the Court to
look outside the four corners of the complaint.