2018 IL App (1st) 170201
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Kenneth Watts and Gavie Wofford (Illinois residents) sued ADDO Management, L.L.C. (ADDO), BDJ Trucking Co. (BDJ), and individual owners alleging unpaid wages for three round trips to Portland, Oregon (12,714 miles) totaling about $2,924. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Wage Act).
- Plaintiffs alleged they were hired/paid by ADDO (owned by Sasca, based in Michigan), but recruited, dispatched from, and supplied fuel cards at BDJ’s Niles, Illinois facility (BDJ owned by Mujkic, an Illinois resident). They alleged regular communication with both companies and payroll deposits from ADDO.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under section 2-615, arguing the Wage Act does not apply because (1) most work occurred outside Illinois and (2) some defendants (BDJ/Mujkic) were not employers under the Act. Trial court dismissed the Wage Act count with prejudice after calculating that only ~8% of trip miles were in Illinois.
- On appeal plaintiffs argued the Wage Act covers Illinois employees regardless of how much work was performed in-state and that the complaint adequately pled employer/agency relationships.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred in dismissing: the Wage Act and Department of Labor regulations do not make applicability turn on the percentage of work performed in Illinois, and plaintiffs adequately pleaded employer/agent relationships to survive a 2-615 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Wage Act applies when most work is performed outside Illinois | Watts: Wage Act covers Illinois employees regardless of amount of in-state work; no statutory percentage requirement | Defendants: Wage Act doesn’t reach out-of-state work; plaintiffs’ trips mainly outside Illinois so Act inapplicable | Court: Act does not require a specific percentage of in-state work; agency regs permit coverage even if work occurs outside Illinois in some circumstances; dismissal for mileage calculation was improper |
| Whether out-of-state employer (ADDO/Sasca) can be subject to the Wage Act | Watts: ADDO had sufficient Illinois contacts (recruiting, trucks stored in IL, dispatching from IL) so Act applies | ADDO: Principal place in Michigan; insufficient Illinois contacts to be Illinois employer | Court: Plaintiffs alleged sufficient in-state contacts and agency-regulation framework supports applying Act to nonresident employers with sufficient contacts; pleadings survive 2-615 |
| Whether BDJ/Mujkic are employers under the Wage Act | Watts: BDJ/Mujkic acted as agents, provided facility, dispatch, fuel cards, and communications, and permitted nonpayment—thus employers under section 13 | BDJ/Mujkic: They lacked control/hiring/payroll authority; plaintiffs were hired and paid by ADDO | Court: Allegations plausibly show agency/section 13 liability; claims against BDJ/Mujkic survive pleading-stage dismissal |
| Whether dismissal on 2-615 was proper without discovery | Watts: Dismissal premature; facts and inferences should be taken as true; discovery needed to develop factual record | Defendants: Facts on face of complaint (mileage) showed Act inapplicable; dismissal justified | Court: Reversed — where applicability rests on disputed factual contacts, dismissal was improper at pleading stage; must allow further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, 2012 IL 112479 (standard for reviewing section 2-615 dismissal)
- Landers-Scelfo v. Corporate Office Systems, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 1060 (Wage Act employer/implicit employment agreement pleading standard)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (2-615 dismissal requires no possible set of facts to support recovery)
- Glass v. Kemper Corp., 133 F.3d 999 (interpretation of Wage Act where plaintiff not Illinois resident)