602058025 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

VANESSA CHAVEZ, BERNADETE 

JOHNSON, KEITH DISMUKES, and 

LATASHA TURNER, individually and 

on behalf of a class of persons similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

HAT WORLD, INC., a Minnesota 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

The Honorable Joan B. Gottschall 

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox 

Case No. 1:12-cv-5563 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS 

Defendant, Hat World, Inc. (“Hat World”), by its attorneys, respectfully responds to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order Quashing Subpoenas (“Motion”) as follows: 

Introduction 

At issue in this case is whether or not each individual Plaintiff was properly classified as 

exempt under the administrative, executive, or combination exemptions of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”). The fact that Plaintiffs described their Hat World job duties in 

employment applications, résumés and other documents as including several exempt duties and 

responsibilities under the administrative, executive, and combination exemptions makes it more 

probable that the Plaintiffs were properly classified than it would be without such evidence. Fed. 

R. Evid. 401. Accordingly, the subpoenaed documents to Plaintiffs’ current employers seeking 

Plaintiffs’ employment applications and resumes (among other documents) are properly 

discoverable and relevant, if only for their descriptions of the duties that each Plaintiff performed 

Case: 1:12-cv-05563 Document #: 61 Filed: 03/25/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:624
602058025 - 2 -

while employed as a Hat World Store Manager. Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion to quash discovery of 

these relevant documents should be denied. 

Background 

Hat World agrees that on January 25, 2013 and February 13, 2013, named Plaintiffs 

responded to discovery requests by: (1) identifying employers from whom they sought 

employment during the past three years (Ex. A (Chavez); Ex. B (Johnson); Ex. C (Dismukes); 

Ex. D (Turner) Interrogatory Answer No. 4, p. 8); and (2) agreeing to produce employment 

applications, resumes, and related correspondence submitted to these employers in their attempts 

to be hired, or affirmatively representing that they did not possess any such documents. (Ex. A 

(Chavez), Document Response No. 15, p. 9, indicating “[N]one. Investigation continues”; Ex. B 

(Johnson) Document Response No. 15, p. 9, indicating “[N]one. Investigation continues”; Ex. C 

(Dismukes) Document Response No. 15, p. 9, indicating “[N]one. Investigation continues”; Ex. 

D (Turner) Document Response No. 15, p. 8, indicating “Plaintiff will produce documents 

responsive to this request. Investigation continues”.) Plaintiffs’ document production—which 

consisted of 246 pages1

—had no documents responsive to Defendant’s Request No. 15. 

 

1

 Plaintiffs have produced 246 pages –- Genesco, Inc.’s 2011 Annual Report (91 pages), job descriptions and 

articles about Hat World that they appear to have printed off the internet (112 pages), responses to Plaintiffs’ 

attorneys’ FOIA requests propounded upon various U.S. DOL branches and state agencies (23 pages), some of 

Plaintiff Dismukes’ pay stubs and tax returns (16 pages), and some of Plaintiff Bernadete Johnson’s pay information 

(6 pages).

Case: 1:12-cv-05563 Document #: 61 Filed: 03/25/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:625
602058025 - 3 -

Accordingly, Hat World served the six (6) narrowly-tailored subpoenas on the registered 

agents for the companies identified by Plaintiffs.2

 In the subpoenas, Hat World requests as 

follows: 

“...all documents related to [named Plaintiff’s] application for 

employment to [employer], including without limitation any 

personal statements, descriptions of work history, descriptions of 

work experience, résumés, job applications and/or other documents 

provided to [employer] by [named Plaintiff].” 

Subpoenas are attached hereto as Exhibit E. 

Argument 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense—including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and 

location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who 

know of any discoverable matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant evidence” means evidence 

having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the 

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 

Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

In this action, Plaintiffs’ claims are that, while employed as Store Managers at Hat 

World, they were misclassified as exempt employees. Hat World contends that Plaintiffs were 

properly classified. Examples of work that fall within the executive and administrative 

exemptions included the following: 

 

2

 On February 25, 2013, pursuant to Rule 45(b)(1), Defendant served notice on all parties that it intended to 

subpoena Plaintiffs’ current employers and sent courtesy copies to Plaintiffs’ counsel by email. On February 26, 

2013, Defendant effected service of subpoenas on said employers. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05563 Document #: 61 Filed: 03/25/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:626
602058025 - 4 -

interviewing, selecting, and training of employees; setting and 

adjusting their rates of pay and hours of work; directing the work 

of employees; maintaining production or sales records for use in 

supervision or control; appraising employees’ productivity and 

efficiency for the purpose of recommending promotions or other 

changes in status; handling employee complaints and grievances; 

disciplining employees; planning the work; determining the 

techniques to be used; apportioning the work among employees; 

determining the type of materials, supplies, machinery, equipment 

or tools to be used or merchandise to be bought, stocked and sold; 

controlling the flow and distribution of materials or merchandise 

and supplies; providing for the safety and security of the 

employees or the property; planning and controlling the budget; 

and monitoring or implementing legal compliance measures.” 

29 C.F.R. §541.102 (executive exemption). 

work in functional areas such as tax; finance; accounting; 

budgeting; auditing; insurance; quality control; purchasing; 

procurement; advertising; marketing; research; safety and health; 

personnel management; human resources; employee benefits; labor 

relations; public relations; government relations; computer 

network, internet and database administration; legal and regulatory 

compliance; and similar activities. 

29 C.F.R. §541.201(b) (administrative exemption). In addition, “an employee whose primary 

duty involves a combination of exempt administrative and exempt executive work may qualify 

for exemption.” 29 C.F.R. §541.708. 

The subpoenas at issue request statements by Plaintiffs to third parties about the work 

they performed while employed at Hat World. Such documents are highly relevant in 

misclassification cases. Jackson v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 362 F.Supp.2d 1323, 1330, nn. 14 

& 20 (N.D. Ga. 2005)(granting summary judgment for defendant on executive exemption for a 

claim brought by assistant manager-plaintiffs, in part because the plaintiffs described their 

employment as assistant managers as being management on their resumes) 

For example, at least one subpoenaed party, American Girl Place, Inc., possessed and 

produced named Plaintiff Bernadette Johnson’s resume and application prior to the stay issued 

Case: 1:12-cv-05563 Document #: 61 Filed: 03/25/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:627
602058025 - 5 -

by the Court, and these documents contain Ms. Johnson’s description of her job duties and 

responsibilities at Hat World’s Lid’s store. (See, Ex. F). A portion of Ms. Johnson’s resume 

(Ex. F) lists her duties as a Store Manager at Lids, which fall squarely within the administrative, 

executive, and combination exemptions set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 541.100 et seq., including: 

 Making change orders and dropping off deposits; 

 Handle daily reports and verify all monthly reports; 

 Hiring of staff and conducting orientation; 

 Finalize payroll; 

 Review schedules for proper staffing; 

 Calculate sales goals, and budgets for up coming [sic] months; 

 Plan quarterly job fares; 

 Plan for Associates growth lessons; 

 Assist in monthly inventory threw [sic] out the district; 

 Daily inventory checks completed on hot areas; 

 Customers service is top priority and situations are handled with upmost urgency 

and respect 

Given the relevance of the subpoenaed documents produced prior to the Court’s stay, the 

remaining subpoenas should be enforced and these relevant documents should be provided to 

Hat World. 

In their responses to Interrogatories, Plaintiffs represented that such documents are not in 

their possession, custody, or control and, accordingly, did not produce them. Moreover, to date, 

Plaintiffs have not produced any such documents. 

Conclusion 

WHEREFORE, Hat World, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Protective Order Quashing Subpoenas, and grant any such further relief as the Court 

deems necessary and proper. 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-05563 Document #: 61 Filed: 03/25/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:628
602058025 - 6 -

Dated: March 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

HAT WORLD, INC. 

By: /s/ Joel Griswold 

 One of Its Attorneys 

Joel Griswold 

Melissa A. Siebert 

John C. McIlwee 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

191 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3100 

Chicago, Illinois 60606-1901 

Case: 1:12-cv-05563 Document #: 61 Filed: 03/25/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:629
602058025 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above 

and foregoing Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order Quashing Subpoenas 

was served this 25th day of March 2013, via the ECF system for the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois, upon the following: 

James X. Bormes Thomas M. Ryan 

Law Office of James X. Bormes Law Offices of Thomas Ryan 

8 South Michigan Avenue 35 E. Wacker Drive 

Suite 2600 #650 

Chicago, IL 60603-0575 Chicago, IL 60601-2119 

Jeffrey Grant Brown Peter E. Converse 

Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C. Converse Law Offices, LLC 

221 North LaSalle Street 8 South Michigan Avenue 

Suite 1414 Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60601-1344 Chicago, IL 60603-0575 

Catherine P. Sons 

Law Office of James X. Bormes 

8 South Michigan Avenue 

Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60603-0575 

/s/ Joel Griswold 

Case: 1:12-cv-05563 Document #: 61 Filed: 03/25/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:630