Conley, Conncely, Engdahl, and Meacham allege a violation of the IMWL in Counts IV, IX,
XIV, and XIX, respectively, for failure to pay the Plaintiffs overtime wages based on the Defendants’
failure to pay the Plaintiffs any wages for February 2002.

The IMWL requires that employers pay employees compensation for their employment more
than forty hours in a workweck at a rate of not Jess than one and one-half times the regular rate at
which they are employed. See 820 TLCS § 105/4a(1). As stated above, genuine issues of material
fact remain as to whether the Plaintiffs have a right to reccive overtime compensation and whether
the Defendants failed to pay such compensation. Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings is denied
as to Counts [V, [X, XTV, and XIX.

Conley, Conncely, Engdahl, and Meacham allege a violation of the IWPCA in Counts V, X,
XV, and XX, respectively, for the failure to pay the Plaintiffs their wages for February 2002 and the
failure to pay the Plaintiffs their vacation and personal days as part of their “final compensation”
following the cessation of their employment with the Defendants.

The IWPCA requires that every employer shall pay the final compensation due to a separated
employce at the time of separation, if possible, but in no case later than the next regularly scheduled
payday for that employce. 820 ILCS § 115/5, In addition, if the employment provides for paid
vacations and an employee is separated from employment without having taken all vacation time,
the monetary equivalent of all earned vacation shall be paid to the employee as part of his or her final
compensation. 820 ILCS § 115/5.

Defendants admit to failing to pay the Plaintiffs their wages for the month of February 2002
and any final compensation due the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Defendants have violated 820 ILCS

§ 115/5; and judgment on the pleadings is granted as to Counts V, X, XV, and XX,


The FLSA requires that employers pay employees compensation for their employment more
than forty hours in a workweek at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at
which they are employed. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1)-

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them overtime for a time period
beginning three years prior to their filing the present lawsuit and ending with the end of their
employment with the Defendants. Defendants have denied these allegations. The Plaintiffs contend
that judgment should be entered in their favor because the Defendants have admitted to failing to pay
the Plaintiffs any wages for February 2002. However. the Plaintiffs have not specifically alleged that
they worked overtime during the month of February 2002. As such, genuine issues of material fact
remain as to whether the Plaintiffs have a right to receive overtime compensation and whether the
Defendants failed to pay such compensation. Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings is denied as
to Counts IJ, VII, XT, and XVII.

Conley, Conneely, Engdahl, and Meachamallege a violation of the IMWL in Counts II, VIII,
XML, and XVILU, respectively, for failure to pay the Plaintiffs the minimum wage based on the
Defendants’ failure to pay the Plaintiffs any wages for February 2002.

The IMWL requires that employers covered by the Act pay wages at specified amounts that
cannot be less than the federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by 29U.S.C. § 206(a)(1). See 820
ILCS § 105/4(a). The fai jure to pay any wages to an employee constitutes a violation of the IMWL
requirement that employees are paid wages at the minimum wage. SeeBrock, 483 U.S. at 33, . 9
(1987). Accordingly, the Defendants violated 820 TLCS § 105/4(a) when they failed to pay the
Plaintiffs the wages due to them for February 2002; and judgment on the pleadings is granted as to

Counts IM, VIL, XI, and XVIIL


For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is
granted in part and denied in part. Judgment is entered against Team Info Age and Arvind Nath

as to Counts 1, II, V, VI, VUI, X, XJ, XID, XV, XVI, XVI, and XX.

”

Dated: oy 27 20044

soln W. DARRAH
ee ,
United States District Judge


Lae

Minty Order Tor (1697)

United States District Court, Northern District of Iinois

Name of Assij Judy j Sitting Judye if Oth
oie Magistrate alge John W. Darrah than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 639 DATE 1/27/2004
CASE Conley vs. Team Info Age
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, «-g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state bricfly the nature

of the motion being presented.

en)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above, ]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due _

QB) a Answer bricfto motion due____- Reply to answer briefduc__

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on __s set for_ sat

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set tor] on _____set for__ at =

(6) a Pretrial conference(held/continucd tol [set for/re-set for}on_____setfor at

(7) Oo Trialfsct for/re-set for)on eat

(8) a {Bench/Sury tial] (Hearing] held/continued to at.

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs(by/agreement/pursuant to]
CUFRCP4(m) (Loca! Rule 41.1 COFRCP4I(a\ 1) Cl FRCP4I(a\(2).

(ao ff |Other docket entry] Status hearing held and continued to 2/19/04 at 9:00 a.m. For the reasons

stated in the attached memorandum opinion and order, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment
on the pleadings on liability [17-1] is granted in part and denied in part. Judgment is entered against Team
Info Age and Arvind Nath as to Counts I, TI, V, VI, VIII, X, XI, XII, XV, XVI, XVII and XX. Plaintiffs’
motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as moot [13-1]. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.

| [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order,]

No notices required, advised in open court.

lo notices required.
‘No notices req umber of notices

Document
Number

Notices mailed by judge's stat.
JAN 28 2004
Notified counsel by telephune. dare dockered
Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. dockutg doputy ints

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

stare maiiod native
courtroom,

MP deputy's
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials

4



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

KATHY CONLEY, JOHN CONNEELY,
ERIC ENGDAHL, DENISE MEACHAM, and
RANDY MEACHAM,

Plaintifts,
No. 03 C 0639
Y.
Judge John W. Darrah
TEAM INFO AGE, an [linois corporation;

MASCON INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGIES, L{D.; JAY KRISHNAMURTHY;
ARVIND NATH; and NANDU THONDAVADI,

weweveveee verve

Defendants,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act (“IWPCA”) based on Defendants’ alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs’ wages, overtime,
and vacation and personal days. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Kathy Conley, John Conneely,
Eric Engdahl, and Denise Meacham (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) seek partial judgment against
Defendants Team Info Age and Arvind Nath (hercinatter “Defendants”) based on their admissions
in their Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Accordingly, only those allegations and

admissions relevant to these Defendants are discussed,’

‘Defendants’ response to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings was
due on October 30, 2003. No response was filed. On November 18, 2003, this Court extended
the time for Defendants to file their response to November 25, 2003. No response was filed. q (


A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) is subject to the same
standard as a motion for summary judgment, except that the district court may only consider the
contents of the pleadings. See Alexander v. City of Chicago, 994 F.2d 333, 336 (7th Cir. 1993)
(Alexander). Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings may not be granted unless no genuine issues
of material fact remain to be resolved and unless the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Alexander, 994 F.2d at 336.

Conley, Conneely, Engdahl, and Meacham allege a violation of the FLSA in Counts T, VJ,
XI, and XVI, respectively, for failure to pay the Plaintiffs the minimum wage based on the
Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs any wages for February 2002. The Defendants have admitted
to failing to pay the Plaintiffs any wages due them for February 2002. The Defendants also admit
they are an “employer” as defined within the FLSA and that the Plaintiffs are “employecs” as defined
by the FLSA.

The FLSA requires that employers covered by the Act pay wages at specified amounts,
commonly referred to as the “minimum wage”. See 29 U.S.C. § 206. The failure to pay any wages
to an employee constitutes a violation of FLSA’s requirement that employees are paid wages at the
minimum wage. See Citicorp Indus, Credit, Inc. v. Brock, 483 U.S. 27, 33, n. 9 (1987) (Brock).
Accordingly, the Defendants violated Section 206 of the FLSA when they failed to pay the Plaintiffs
the wages due to them for February 2002, and judgment on the pleadings is granted as to Counts 1,
V1, XJ, and XVL

Conley, Conneely, Engdahl, and Meacham allege a violation of the FLSA in Counts TI, VII,
XII, and XVUL, respectively, for failure to pay the Plaintiffs overtime wages based on the Defendants’

failure to pay the Plaintiffs any wages for February 2002.