Perez v. Super Maid, LLC
55 F. Supp. 3d 1065
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Secretary sues Supermaid, LLC and its president Krawczyk for FLSA minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping violations seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and an injunction.
- Supermaid provides cleaning services in Chicago area with annual sales >$500,000; Krawczyk controls pay, scheduling, hiring, and payroll.
- Maids are told via forms and training that they are not to compete with Supermaid and may be disciplined for violations.
- Maids are treated as employees in practice; Supermaid demands long-term, consistent staffing and assigns the same maids to regular clients.
- Supermaid paid per-house rates, did not compensate for travel time between job sites, and did not provide paid breaks; records were incomplete.
- Deloitte calculated back pay of $92,252.63 for 56 employees; Secretary seeks double damages and an injunction; defendants failed to respond to Rule 56.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Supermaid is an FLSA enterprise engaged in commerce | Supermaid meets enterprise criteria; employees handle interstate goods and sales exceed $500,000. | Supermaid disputed classification as enterprise; no contrary facts in record. | Yes; Supermaid is an enterprise engaged in commerce. |
| Whether Krawczyk is an FLSA employer | Krawczyk, as owner and operator, exercises control over hiring, scheduling, pay, and records. | Krawczyk denies personal liability beyond the corporate entity. | Krawczyk is an employer under §203(d) and personally liable. |
| Whether maids are FLSA employees or independent contractors | Maids operate under supervision, consistent schedules, and are integral to the business; indicators favor employee status. | Maids classified as independent contractors; limited control by Supermaid. | Maids are employees, not independent contractors. |
| What damages are due for minimum wage and overtime violations | Unpaid time between first and last jobsite and overtime under recorded hours; Deloitte data supports amounts. | Recordkeeping gaps hinder precise calculation; no specific rebuttal. | $92,252.63 back pay; $184,505.26 total with liquidated damages. |
| Whether an injunction is appropriate to prevent future violations | Past misclassification, lack of reliable records, and ongoing noncompliance justify injunction. | No assurances of future compliance. | injunction granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (burden-shifting approach for back wages when records are incomplete)
- Riordan v. Kempiners, 831 F.2d 690 (7th Cir. 1987) (broad employer definition under FLSA; officer liability possible)
- Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir. 1983) (corporate officers with operational control liable for wage violations)
- Lauritzen v. Larsen, 835 F.2d 1529 (7th Cir. 1987) (economic reality factors for employer/employee classification)
- IbP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (travel time and compensation principles under FLSA)