1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JACIEL ROCHA, individually and on behalf of 

similarly situated persons, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CHIODO CORPORATION, AND STEVE 

CHIODO, individually 

 Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-01902

Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jaciel Rocha (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

delivery drivers, brings this Complaint against Defendants Chiodo Corporation and Steve Chiodo, 

alleges as follows:

1. Defendants operate numerous Domino’s franchise stores. Defendants employ 

delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their 

customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs 

of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement 

rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the 

expenses they incur that the drivers’ unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the 

federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

2. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and as a class action under Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 

820 ILCS § 105/1 et seq. (“Illinois Wage Law”) to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime 

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
2

hours owed to herself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its

Domino’s stores.

Jurisdiction and Venue

3. The FLSA authorizes court actions by private parties to recover damages for 

violation of its wage and hour provisions. Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claim is based on 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question).

4. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Plaintiff resides 

in this District, Defendants employed Plaintiff in this District, Defendants operates Domino’s

franchise stores in this District, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim herein 

occurred in this District.

Parties

5. Defendant, Chiodo Corporation is a corporation and may be served via its 

registered agent, Thomas Hood, who may be served at 501 N Riverside Dr STE #204 Gurnee, IL 

60031. 

6. Defendant, Steve Chiodo is individually liable because, during the relevant times, 

he was an owner of substantial interests in defendant, served as officer of the entity, and held 

managerial responsibilities and substantial control over terms and conditions of drivers’ work as 

they held the power to hire and fire, supervised and controlled work schedules and/or conditions

of employment, determined rates and methods of pay and/or expense reimbursements, and 

maintained employment records and/or held control over employment records. Defendant may be 

served at, PO Box 394 GURNEE 60063, or wherever he may be found. 

7. Plaintiff Jaciel Rocha was employed by Defendants from approximately May 2019

to December 2019 as a delivery driver at Defendants’ Domino’s stores located in the Waukegan, 

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2
3

Illinois area and within this District. Plaintiff’s consent to pursue this claim under the FLSA is 

attached to this Original Complaint as “Exhibit 1.” 

General Allegations

Defendants’ Business

8. Defendants own and operate numerous Domino’s franchise stores including stores 

within this District and this Division.

9. Steve Chiodo is an owner, officer and president of Chiodo Corporation.

10. In this capacity, Mr. Chiodo put the pay scheme at issue in place, has overseen 

and enforced Defendants’ pay practices, and is, therefore, individually liable for the violations at 

issue. 

11. Defendants’ Domino’s stores employ delivery drivers who all have the same 

primary job duty: to deliver pizzas and other food items to customers’ homes or workplaces.

Defendants’ Flawed Automobile Reimbursement Policy

12. Defendants require their delivery drivers to maintain and pay for safe, legallyoperable, and insured automobiles when delivering pizza and other food items.

13. Defendants’ delivery drivers incur costs for gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, 

repair and maintenance services, insurance, depreciation, and other expenses (“automobile 

expenses”) while delivering pizza and other food items for the primary benefit of Defendants.

14. Defendants’ delivery driver reimbursement policy reimburses drivers on a perdelivery basis, but the per-delivery reimbursement equates to below the IRS business mileage 

reimbursement rate or any other reasonable approximation of the cost to own and operate a motor 

vehicle. This policy applies to all of Defendants’ delivery drivers. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3
4

15. The result of Defendants’ delivery driver reimbursement policy is a 

reimbursement of much less than a reasonable approximation of its drivers’ automobile expenses.

16. During the applicable FLSA limitations period, the IRS business mileage 

reimbursement rate ranged between $.535 and $.575 per mile. Likewise, reputable companies that 

study the cost of owning and operating a motor vehicle and/or reasonable reimbursement rates, 

including the AAA, have determined that the average cost of owning and operating a vehicle 

ranged between $.571 and $.608 per mile during the same period for drivers who drive 15,000 

miles per year. These figures represent a reasonable approximation of the average cost of owning 

and operating a vehicle for use in delivering pizzas.

17. However, the driving conditions associated with the pizza delivery business cause 

even more frequent maintenance costs, higher costs due to repairs associated with driving, and 

more rapid depreciation from driving as much as, and in the manner of, a delivery driver. 

Defendants’ delivery drivers further experience lower gas mileage and higher repair costs than 

the average driver used to determine the average cost of owning and operating a vehicle described 

above due to the nature of the delivery business, including frequent starting and stopping of the 

engine, frequent braking, short routes as opposed to highway driving, and driving under time 

pressures.

18. Defendants’ reimbursement policy does not reimburse delivery drivers for even 

their ongoing out-of-pocket expenses, much less other costs they incur to own and operate their 

vehicle, and thus Defendants uniformly fail to reimburse its delivery drivers at any reasonable 

approximation of the cost of owning and operating their vehicles for Defendants’ benefit.

19. Defendants’ systematic failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses 

constitutes a “kickback” to Defendants such that the hourly wages it pays to Plaintiff and 

Defendants’ other delivery drivers are not paid free and clear of all outstanding obligations to 

Defendants.

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4
5

20. Defendants fail to reasonably approximate the amount of their drivers’ automobile 

expenses to such an extent that its drivers’ net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum 

wage requirements.

21. In sum, Defendants’ reimbursement policy and methodology fail to reflect the 

realities of delivery drivers’ automobile expenses.

Defendants’ Failure to Reasonably Reimburse Automobile Expenses Causes Minimum Wage 

Violations

22. Regardless of the precise amount of the per-delivery reimbursement at any given 

point in time, Defendants’ reimbursement formula has resulted in an unreasonable 

underestimation of delivery drivers’ automobile expenses throughout the recovery period, causing 

systematic violations of the federal minimum wage.

23. Plaintiff was paid $5.15 per hour during her employment with Defendants, 

including a tip credit applicable to the time she performed deliveries. 

24. The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since July 24, 2009. The 

Illinois minimum wage has been $8.25 per hour since January 1, 2016. 

25. During the time Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a delivery driver, she has also 

been reimbursed on a per delivery basis of $1.50 per delivery on a trip from the store. 

26. Plaintiff’s average round trip delivery distance is approximately 5 miles.

27. Thus, Defendants have reimbursed Plaintiff at a per mile rate of approximately 

$.300 per mile ($1.50 per delivery / 5 average miles = $.300 per mile).

28. During Plaintiff’s employment, the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate has 

ranged between $.545 and $.58 per mile, which reasonably approximates the automobile expenses 

incurred delivering pizzas. http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/Standard-Mileage-Rates. Using 

the lowest IRS rate as a reasonable approximation of Plaintiff’s automobile expenses, every mile 

driven on the job decreased Plaintiff’s net wages by approximately $.245 ($.545 - $.300). 

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5
6

29. During her employment by Defendants, Plaintiff regularly made 3 or more 

deliveries per hour. Thus using even a conservative under-estimate of Plaintiff’s actual expenses 

and damages, every hour on the job decreased Plaintiff’s net wages by at least $3.68 for every 

hour worked ($.245 x 5 miles/delivery x 3 deliveries/hour).

30. All of Defendants’ delivery drivers had similar experiences to those of Plaintiff. 

They were subject to the same reimbursement policy; received similar reimbursements; incurred 

similar automobile expenses; completed deliveries of similar distances and at similar frequencies; 

and were paid at or near the federal minimum wage before deducting unreimbursed business 

expenses.

31. Because Defendants paid their drivers a gross hourly wage at precisely, or at least 

very close to, the federal minimum wage, and because the delivery drivers incurred unreimbursed 

automobile expenses, the delivery drivers “kicked back” to Defendants an amount sufficient to 

cause minimum wage violations.

32. While the amount of Defendants’ actual reimbursements per delivery may vary 

over time, Defendants are relying on the same flawed policy and methodology with respect to all 

delivery drivers at all of their other Domino’s stores. Thus, although reimbursement amounts may 

differ somewhat by time or region, the amounts of under-reimbursements relative to automobile 

costs incurred are relatively consistent between time and region.

33. Defendants’ low reimbursement rates were a frequent complaint of Defendants’ 

delivery drivers, which resulted in discussions with management, yet Defendants continued to 

reimburse at a rate much less than any reasonable approximation of delivery drivers’ automobile 

expenses. In fact, there were times that Defendants would not pay Plaintiff and other Drivers 

anything for mileage or would deduct pay from their mileage amounts. 

34. The net effect of Defendants’ flawed reimbursement policy is that Defendants 

have willfully failed to pay the federal minimum wage to their delivery drivers. Defendants 

thereby enjoys ill-gained profits at the expense of its employees.

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6
7

Class and Collective Action Allegations

35. Plaintiff brings this FLSA claim as an “opt-in” collective action on behalf of 

similarly situated delivery drivers pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

36. The FLSA claims may be pursued by those who opt-in to this case pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

37. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, seeks 

relief on a collective basis challenging Defendants’ practice of failing to pay employees federal 

minimum wage. The number and identity of other plaintiffs yet to opt-in may be ascertained from 

Defendants’ records, and potential class members may be notified of the pendency of this action 

via mail and electronic means.

38. Plaintiff and all of Defendants’ delivery drivers are similarly situated in that:

a. They have worked as delivery drivers for Defendants delivering pizza and 

 other food items to Defendants’ customers;

b. They have delivered pizza and food items using automobiles not owned or 

 maintained by Defendants;

c. Defendants required them to maintain these automobiles in a safe, legally-

 operable, and insured condition; 

d. They incurred costs for automobile expenses while delivering pizzas and 

 food items for the primary benefit of Defendants;

e. They were subject to similar driving conditions, automobile expenses, 

 delivery distances, and delivery frequencies;

f. They were subject to the same pay policies and practices of Defendants; 

g. They were subject to the same delivery driver reimbursement policy that 

 under-estimates automobile expenses per mile, and thereby systematically 

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7
8

 deprived of reasonably approximate reimbursements, resulting in wages 

 below the federal minimum wage in some or all workweeks;

h. They were reimbursed similar set amounts of automobile expenses per 

 delivery; and,

i. They were paid at or near the federal minimum wage before deducting 

 unreimbursed business expenses.

39. Plaintiff brings Count II as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf 

of herself and as the Class Representatives of the following persons (the “Class”):

All current and former delivery drivers employed by Defendants 

since the date two years preceding the filing of this Complaint.

40. The state law claims, if certified for class-wide treatment, are brought on behalf of 

all similarly situated persons who do not opt-out of the Class.

41. The Class satisfies the numerosity standard as it consists of hundreds of persons 

who are geographically dispersed and, therefore, joinder of all Class members in a single action 

is impracticable.

42. Questions of fact and law common to the Class predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual members. The questions of law and fact common to the Class arising 

from Defendants’ actions include, without limitation:

a. Whether Defendants failed to pay Class members the minimum wage 

 required by Illinois law,

b. Whether Defendants failed to reasonably reimburse Class members for 

 using their own vehicles to deliver Defendants’ pizzas and other food 

 items,

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8
9

c. Whether Defendants’ formula and / or methodology used to calculate the 

 payment of reimbursement for vehicle expenses resulted in unreasonable 

 under-reimbursement of the Class members, 

d. Whether Defendants failed to keep accurate records of deductions from 

 Class members’ wages in violation of Illinois law, and

e. Whether Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the Putative 

 Plaintiffs for “other amounts promised” pursuant to its company 

 handbook, and thus required by Illinois and Federal Law; 

43. The questions set forth above predominate over any questions affecting only 

individual persons, and a class action is superior with respect to considerations of consistency, 

economy, efficiency, fairness, and equity to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the state law claims.

44. Plaintiff’s claim is typical of those of the Class in that:

a. Plaintiff and the Class have worked as delivery drivers for Defendants 

 delivering pizza and other food items to Defendants’ customers;

b. Plaintiff and the Class delivered pizza and food items using automobiles 

 not owned or maintained by Defendants;

c. Defendants required Plaintiff and the Class to maintain these automobiles 

 in a safe, legally-operable, and insured condition;

d. Plaintiff and the Class incurred costs for automobile expenses while 

 delivering pizzas and food items for the primary benefit of Defendants;

e. Plaintiff and the Class were subject to similar driving conditions, 

 automobile expenses, delivery distances, and delivery frequencies;

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9
10

f. Plaintiff and the Class were subject to the same pay policies and practices 

 of Defendants;

g. Plaintiff and the Class were subject to the same delivery driver 

reimbursement policy that underestimates automobile expenses per mile, and 

thereby systematically deprived of reasonably approximate reimbursements, 

resulting in wages below the federal minimum wage in some or all workweeks; 

h. Plaintiff and the Class were reimbursed similar set amounts of automobile 

expenses per delivery; and

i. Plaintiff and the Class were paid at or near Illinois minimum wage before 

deducting unreimbursed business expenses.

45. A class action is the appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

this controversy. Defendants has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

Class.

46. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because she is a member of the 

Class and her interests do not conflict with the interest of the members of the Class she seeks to 

represent. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by 

Plaintiff and the undersigned counsel, who have extensive experience prosecuting complex wage 

and hour, employment, and class action litigation.

47. Maintenance of this action as a class action is superior to other available methods 

for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy as members of the Class have little interest 

in individually controlling the prosecution of separate class actions, no other litigation is pending 

over the same controversy, it is desirable to concentrate the litigation in this Court due to the 

relatively small recoveries per member of the Class, and there are no material difficulties

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10
11

impairing the management of a class action. 

48. It would be impracticable and undesirable for each member of the Class who 

suffered harm to bring a separate action. In addition, the maintenance of separate actions would 

place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the courts and could result in inconsistent 

adjudications, while a single class action can determine, with judicial economy, the rights of all 

Class members.

Count I: Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

49. Plaintiff reasserts and re-alleges the allegations set forth above.

50. The FLSA regulates, among other things, the payment of minimum wage by 

employers whose employees are engaged in interstate commerce, or engaged in the production of 

goods for commerce, or employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of 

goods for commerce. 29 U.S.C. §206(a).

51. Defendants are subject to the FLSA’s minimum wage requirements because it is 

an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, and its employees are engaged in commerce.

52. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated delivery 

drivers have been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.

53. Section 13 of the FLSA, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 213, exempts certain categories 

of employees from federal minimum wage obligations. None of the FLSA exemptions apply to 

Plaintiff or other similarly situated delivery drivers.

54. Under Section 6 of the FLSA, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 206, employees have been 

entitled to be compensated at a rate of at least $7.25 per hour since July 24, 2009.

55. As alleged herein, Defendants have reimbursed delivery drivers less than the 

reasonably approximate amount of their automobile expenses to such an extent that it diminishes 

these employees’ wages beneath the federal minimum wage.

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11
12

56. Defendants knew or should have known that their pay and reimbursement policies, 

practices and methodology result in failure to compensate delivery drivers at the federal minimum 

wage.

57. Defendants, pursuant to their policy and practice, violated the FLSA by refusing 

and failing to pay federal minimum wage to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.

58. Plaintiff and all similarly situated delivery drivers are victims of a uniform and 

employer-based compensation and reimbursement policy. This uniform policy, in violation of the 

FLSA, has been applied, and continues to be applied, to all delivery driver employees in 

Defendants’ stores.

59. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are entitled to damages equal to the 

minimum wage minus actual wages received after deducting reasonably approximated 

automobile expenses within three years from the date each Plaintiff joins this case, plus periods 

of equitable tolling, because Defendants acted willfully and knew, or showed reckless disregard 

for, whether its conduct was unlawful.

60. Defendants have acted neither in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to believe 

that its actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and as a result, Plaintiff and other 

similarly situated employees are entitled to recover an award of liquidated damages in an amount 

equal to the amount of unpaid minimum wages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Alternatively, should 

the Court find Defendants is not liable for liquidated damages, Plaintiff and all similarly situated 

employees are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate.

61. As a result of the aforesaid willful violations of the FLSA’s minimum wage 

provisions, minimum wage compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Defendants from 

Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees. Accordingly, Defendants are liable under 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b), together with an additional amount as liquidated damages, pre-judgment and 

post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of this action.

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12
13

Count II: Violations of Illinois Minimum Wage Law

62. Plaintiff reasserts and re-alleges the allegations set forth above.

63. At all relevant times, Defendants have been and continue to be an “employer” 

within the meaning of Illinois Wage Law. 820 ILCS §105/3. 

64. At all relevant times, Defendants have employed, and continues to employ, 

“employees”, including Plaintiff, within the meaning of Illinois Wage Law 820 ILCS §105/3.

65. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants within the meaning of Illinois Wage Law 

820 ILCS §105/3.

66. Pursuant to Illinois Minimum Wage Law 820 ILCS §105/2 et seq., the Defendants 

were required to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs all wages, when due, for all hours of 

work at hourly rates which exceeded the minimum wage rate under the FLSA on their regular pay 

date. 

67. Defendants were required to provide employees with advanced notice for wage 

deductions permissible by and in compliance with Illinois Wage Law. 

68. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs reimbursements for 

travel expenses “as other amounts promised” under Illinois Wage Law and thus failed to comply 

with this statute and its accompanying administrative code. 820 ILCS §105/2 et seq.

69. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes willful violations of the Illinois

Minimum Wage Act. Id. 

70. As set forth above, the Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs have sustained losses 

and lost compensation as a proximate result of Defendants’ violations. Accordingly, Plaintiff on 

behalf of herself and the Putative Plaintiffs, seek damages in the amount of their unpaid earned 

compensation, liquidated damages, plus interest at the legal rate set forth in the Illinois Minimum 

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:13
14

Wage Act 820 ILCS §105/12, et seq. from the date each amount came due as provided by Illinois

Wage Law.

71. As a result of the foregoing conduct, as alleged, Defendants have failed to pay 

wages due under Illinois Wage Law and the FLSA, thereby violating, and continuing to violate, 

Illinois Wage Law. As described in detail above, these unpaid wages include overtime wages 

owed for: missed meal and rest breaks and “off the clock” work such as time working in the store 

before and after shifts. As described above, these violations were committed knowingly, willfully 

and with reckless disregard of applicable law. 820 ILCS §105/12.

72. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Putative Plaintiffs, seek recovery of her

attorneys’ fees as provided by the Illinois Minimum Wage Act. Id.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class demand judgment against Defendants and pray for: 

(1) compensatory damages; (2) liquidated damages, (3) costs of litigation and attorney’s fees as 

provided by law; (4) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and (5) such 

other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.

Demand for Jury Trial

Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury of all issues triable by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Forester_____ 

J. Forester

Texas Bar No. 24087532 

M. Mathews

Texas Bar No. 24055180

FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC

400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 210-2100 phone

(214) 346-5909 fax

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14
15

www.foresterhaynie.com

/s/ Matthew D. Rose__ 

Matthew D. Rose

IARDC No. 6302878

9501 W. Devon Ave., Ste. 702

Rosemont, IL 60018

(312) 541-1078 phone

mrose@drlawpc.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:15
16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is the Original Complaint. Service of this Complaint will be made on Defendants 

with summons to be issued by the clerk according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

/s/ J. Forester_______

Case: 1:20-cv-01902 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/20 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:16