two thousand eight of lecturing that the way the defendant paid them minimum wage violate minimum wage law and specifically what the defendant did but the employer did is they paid a cash wage and then put out a hundred percent of the minimum wage and they and they made up the difference by giving repayment a twenty five percent twenty five set meal credit for other words they get all cash plus twenty five cents the the record indicates what the defendant claims being what it costs to sixty two or sixty four to sixty four right here our it was in the average the right correct case that the most expensive and correct and it was somewhere in the neighborhood of about six thousand meals right yes fifty nine twenty three was all right and you sort of suggested that i don't know what percentage but some of these meals were going to delivery drivers yet actually meal times the number of meals that they provide and then compare that to the amount of money he had to stand for to make these deals that  in the restaurant on a daily basis that writers they have that repeats is correct in there but they're also managers that how many managers i mean isn't most of the restaurant made up of the ball are employees and the managers are few ye so didn't they show up anyway there's some certainly evan entries for for maybe one year if you take the least expensive and you know that they provided so many thousands of  minimum wage to everybody and two thousand when i paid minimum wage to everybody but two thousand and ten i don't have the records but trust me i paid minimum wage that year as well that that's not the way the wage laws work the employers  fact that those records are helpful for that time frame you cannot extrapolate that and say well of course they must have paid the minimum wage in the prior years no later they can come up with further documentation  question of fact as to whether or not the year that they have every single meal ticket demonstrative of that they weren't making a profit theoretically it could be but they did not keep those records well to compile records indicate what they paid to those boys well they've they've made that attempt and we don't believe they're successful because the minimum wage law apply language says they he's right but you do have to help me thing i think i read with your proposition that you have to show how many of these meals did they actually provide because if you don't do that how are you really establish thing that you did not make a profit or that you made a loss and the fact is that other than the the final year of the final love and a half months they do not have the records show what was consumed and all of the price went back to two thousand and three they kept no records of what was actually consumed in terms of the forward end and frankly the trial court just ignored the language that said what you what you as food actually consume in two thousand and eight going backwards they don't have records of what was consuming eight bay have what the defendants have done and what the trial court accepted is the defendants totaled up the number of ships involved and the defendants equated shift equals meal and there's no evidence of that there's no evidence and common sense would say that i don't care if the employer supplied mobster which is your favorite food i just comes out says the employees are not going to eat it day after day after day after day but the defendant has taken the position that it was available every chef they could have to consume it and that's all we need to do actually used what were they taking now twenty five cents from from whatever the shift was let's say the employee worked they say here that there was an air bridge six and a half hours so it's twenty five cents per hour so we're talking about a dollar fifty yes ok do you think that at least for made here that they have all these records do you think that you showed by way of any testimony expert or otherwise think other than the last eleven and a half months we absolutely did how we we showed it right i'd be excellence of anything correct because it's by the absence of their rights yes because it's the employer paid minimum wage if it is a net legally competent evidence i mean summary judgment on every case you have to have some legally competent evidence to show that you weren't hey now for someone just to gets into the issue of the past certification so that the fact that every employee is subject to this twenty five cent adoption well that i think just taylor point is well taken there's no requirement under illinois law or needs the actual cost to the employer to put out those meals and then to show they didn't make a profit you have to know how many meals were provided otherwise you don't show the employer is literally providing that are being consumed every day is to take a somewhat absurd example let's say the employer said we're going to fit furnish caring for some liver and onions and that's the only food item and the employees say geez you know i know i'm paying twenty five cents for this but i just can't stomach area so they don't consume it and the employer says hey i made it available for them it's not my problem that they didn't the employees are consuming i have a you're coming before us and you're saying did you really have no burden of proof the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that they paid the minimum wage you know what you're telling us it's the defendant bird well we have to we have to put into play we have to provide evidence that race that christ was well matched that raises the question there to bet offers evidence of that question minimum evidence but in the end the defendant was at the end that you see that's another story because the burden sometimes is transferred some people call it shifting but you still have to make a prime facia case you have to show some evidence that they're not paying minimum wage and then they have to show that they are and  meal program ok and you allege that with the meal program they were not that they were they were making a profit because the real the average cost has to be the actual cost and it can never they can't make a profit on it ok so you basically set they were taking out money therefore  getting back from me or taking from the place that's what i mean so you basically laid out your complaint and and then you said ok now we get some retest because for these years you don't have any records well we were relying on the same record but there were a lot of the record before the trial court and argue did not substantiate that the employer was paying the minimum wage for the entire period but the year that getting a return this may stop a number of pieces that they provided even if you throw out a punch for the drivers in the manic so all i'm saying is you know what i don't know how do you show me that there's the cost to the employer is to look at the meals actually used and so you look at the records and you say ok we know how much they were conducting now let's figure out how much it was costing them and you testified at her deposition that she did eat meals under this program after she filed a lawsuit she continued to eat meals not every day but did eat meals under this program on the other hand they did and they presented no  y two sixty four you know don't you still have to show that somehow the amount of meals you were providing was eat two or the same as what it cost you  the standard under the illinois administrative code provides that employer may charge the employee the reasonable cost and this is the important part to the employer of furnishing deals right be provided to all employees at the beginning of each week our clients have to make a decision how much how many tomatoes and i going to buy how much turkey am i going to buy how much credit are going to buy they not only have to take into their  with it the average cost of a meal was two sixty four exactly so it the average whirling with whether or not you put out that many meals so that you weren't making a profit because in reality if you're not that we proof the reasonable cost to make a turkey sandwich available to that employee you know your list well i can say that when i say yes i agree with you but how are you showing that you didn't make a the herman case your honor the exact same analysis was done by the employer they substantiated only the cost to them to furnish a meal to their employees they use the employer four dollars if all ten of those employees consumer meal so that there's ten dollars being thrown it hitchen make the meal from the meal programs proper because the lawyer is not  twenty five cents of every single employee check every single week that the meal program would be properly but as the lawyer is still collecting the two hundred where the actual cost the meals that are coming out of the kitchen not wait and how much of that meal they ate that's now but that's not what this example is suggesting it's not that we're looking at whether you know you're the the plain language of the only statute says we only have to prove the reasonable cost of furnishing meals in that hypothetical he's best still have to incur a sunk cost of those five meals that  products to run our restaurant and they would have purchased last breath and not have to provide these kneels to the employees that they would have had less of a demand they would have had to not produce meals for twenty five employees every day and take that into consideration and they're making their analysis of how much they do they do have to purchase i just i think there's something missing from the way above you know i don't think it's enough to say we ordered all these materials and we had we had every intention of putting out so many fields but if you don't have evidence but how many meals you put out then you're not really telling whether or not there's no showing that you did make some money  providing a turkey sandwich provided every single item on the menu and we substantiate that those with itemized food records from our records that's all the work and services case requires us to do that's all the cases the i don't understand how that shows you to make that shows in year in year two thousand and nine you have every single meal voucher you can use there right but you don't get them for any other years interpreted for you you think the record shows there is no question material there that the employer never made a profit even though there's no there's nothing to the step which what how many meals you will produce exactly and if we did the your honor as much as plaintiff would like the sport to believe there simply is no actual consumption requirement in the portion of the illinois administrative  meals to provide the only employees it's not depended on how many employees for working that day there were twenty five to thirty employees we furnish them the opportunity to eat a meal every single day we we did not make a profit but and actually in your honor we provide proof that people were taking advantage of this new program the questionnaire i think we have a record fields there right and i just i'm trying to get this thing out of your do your honor getting back to you know if this court were to determine that we have to prove the exact number of meals that we actually provided or the exact number of meals that available to the employees and that's the difference between the federal regulation and the on the regulation and that's why the vouchers are some type of evidence that identified meals actually