319 F. Supp. 3d 994
E.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiff Taylor Divine was employed by Volunteers of America of Illinois as a case aide (Sept–Nov 2016) and then as a case manager (Dec 2016–Mar 2017).
- Plaintiff alleges both positions were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA/IMWL learned-professional exemption and she worked substantial unpaid overtime throughout employment.
- Plaintiff filed a putative collective action under the FLSA and a class action under the IMWL; Defendant answered and counterclaimed under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), alleging Plaintiff forwarded work emails to her personal account and counsel without authorization.
- Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (or strike the request for declaratory relief) arguing pleading deficiencies and lack of standing for declaratory relief; Plaintiff opposed.
- Defendant separately moved to strike five affirmative defenses Plaintiff asserted in response to the SCA counterclaim, claiming they are invalid or inadequately pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of overtime pleadings | Alleged she worked substantial unpaid overtime in both positions and was misclassified as exempt | Complaint is conclusory, lacks specifics (hours/dates) to plausibly state FLSA/IMWL claims | Court: allegations satisfy notice pleading; claim survives 12(b)(6) dismissal |
| Declaratory relief re: willfulness / statute of limitations | Seeks declaration that Defendant acted willfully (preserve 3-year statute and liquidated damages) | Request is improper or confusing; statute of limitations not for declaratory relief | Court: willfulness allegation suffices at pleading stage; prayer to preserve rights not stricken |
| Standing / ability of former employee to seek declaratory relief | Former-employee may seek monetary relief and declaratory ruling about past violations | Defendant contends former employee lacks standing for declaratory relief because no imminent injury | Court: distinction between injunctive and declaratory relief; former employees may seek declaratory/monetary relief for past violations; request allowed |
| Sufficiency/validity of affirmative defenses to SCA counterclaim | Plaintiff asserted five defenses including retaliation, failure to state a claim, denials, and reservation to amend | Defendant contends defenses are not recognized SCA defenses, are mere denials, or improperly reserved | Court: all five defenses stricken as not proper affirmative defenses or duplicative; motion to strike granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must permit plausible inference of liability)
- Chapman v. Yellow Cab Coop., 875 F.3d 846 (district courts should not demand full factual proof at pleading stage)
- Super Tire Eng'g Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115 (distinguishing declaratory and injunctive relief)
- Bankston v. Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249 (willfulness determination normally for jury)
- Berger v. Xerox Corp. Ret. Income Guarantee Plan, 338 F.3d 755 (declaratory relief as prelude to other relief)
- Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Pyrrhus AG, 936 F.2d 921 (no procedure to reserve affirmative defenses for later pleading)
- Reis Robotics USA, Inc. v. Concept Indus., Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d 897 (affirmative defenses must admit then avoid liability; improper reservations stricken)