1

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RAY CRUZ-PEREZ, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., and 

HC JOLIET, LLC d/b/a HOLLYWOOD 

CASINO JOLIET,

Defendants.

Case No. 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION 

COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Ray Cruz-Perez (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brings this 

Class and Collective Action Complaint against Penn National Gaming, Inc. and HC Joliet, LLC

d/b/a Hollywood Casino Joliet (collectively, “Defendants”). 

NATURE OF SUIT

1. Plaintiff Ray Cruz-Perez brings this wage and hour class and collective action 

against Defendants Penn National Gaming, Inc. and HC Joliet, LLC d/b/a Hollywood Casino 

Joliet. This case concerns two unlawful practices at Defendants’ Illinois casinos (Hollywood 

Casino Joliet, Argosy Casino Alton, and Hollywood Casino Aurora) whereby Defendants violate 

federal and Illinois wage and hour laws. 

2. First, Defendants deducted from the wages of Plaintiff Cruz-Perez and all others 

similarly situated the costs to obtain and thereafter maintain and renew Illinois Occupational 

Gaming Licenses. This practice violates both federal and Illinois law. As multiple federal district 

courts have held, these gaming licenses are primarily for the benefit and convenience of the 

employers (here, Defendants Penn National Gaming, Inc. and HC Joliet, LLC). As such, pursuant 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:1
2

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., these gaming license costs 

may not be deducted from an employee’s wages to the extent the deductions bring the employee’s 

wages below the federally-mandated $7.25 per hour minimum wage. In addition, the gaming 

license deductions violate the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 

105/1, et seq., because they bring employees’ wages below the Illinois minimum wage. Finally, 

the gaming license deductions violate the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (“IWPCA”), 

820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/1, et seq., because Defendants failed to obtain the express written 

consent of the employee at the time the deductions are made and because the deductions are to the 

benefit of the employer. Plaintiff asserts the gaming license deduction claims as collective actions 

pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and class actions pursuant Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23.

3. Second, during a span of several months in 2017, Defendants deducted a 30-minute 

period per shift from the wages of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees; however, 

the employees were not provided a 30-minute meal period. As such, this was simply an auto 

deduction of time worked violating the FLSA, IMWL, and IWPCA. With respect to the FLSA 

and IMWL claims, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees were paid at or below the 

applicable minimum wages such that any deduction of wages necessarily created minimum wage 

violations. With respect to the IWPCA claim, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees 

did not expressly consent in writing to the deductions at the time the deductions were made and, 

given that the meal periods never occurred, the deductions were not to the benefit of the employees.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

violation of the FLSA’s wage and hour provisions. The Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s FLSA claims based upon 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:2
3

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

likewise has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law wage and hour claims because 

they are so related to the FLSA claims that they form part of the same case and controversy, 

satisfying supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

5. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial 

part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this judicial district and Defendants are each 

subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. Plaintiff Cruz-Perez worked for Defendants at their 

Hollywood Casino Joliet property, which Defendants operate within the Eastern Division of the 

Northern District of Illinois.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Ray Cruz-Perez is an individual residing in Joliet, Illinois. Since 2011, 

Plaintiff Cruz-Perez has been employed by Defendants Penn National Gaming, Inc. and HC Joliet, 

LLC as a table games dealer at Hollywood Casino Joliet in Joliet, Illinois. Plaintiff Cruz-Perez’s 

executed Consent to Join is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

216(b).

7. Defendant Penn National Gaming, Inc. (“PNG”) is a corporation organized under 

the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Wyomissing, 

Pennsylvania.

8. Defendant HC Joliet, LLC d/b/a Hollywood Casino Joliet (“HC Joliet”) is a limited 

liability company organized under the laws of the State of Illinois with, according to its filings 

with the Illinois Secretary of State, its principal place of business in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. 

However, HC Joliet is the corporate entity affiliated with the Hollywood Casino Joliet property 

located in Joliet, Illinois. Upon information and belief, HC Joliet’s principal place of business is 

in Joliet, Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:3
4

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

9. HC Joliet is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PNG. Together, PNG and HC Joliet 

operate the Hollywood Casino Joliet property located in Joliet, Illinois. In addition, PNG operates 

two other casinos in Illinois—Argosy Casino Alton and Hollywood Casino Aurora—where PNG 

employs casino workers who are similarly situated to Plaintiff. 

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Defendants Jointly Employed Plaintiff and All Others Similarly Situated

10. PNG operates a hub and spoke employment structure whereby, PNG, at the 

operational center of the wheel, has spokes leading out to each of its individual casino subsidiaries, 

including Defendant HC Joliet, Argosy Casino Alton and Hollywood Casino Aurora (collectively, 

the subsidiary casino entities). By design, each individual subsidiary casino entity is the 

acknowledged employer of the employees, like Plaintiff, who physically work at the casino 

property. However, as a matter of economic reality, from its position at the operational center of 

this structure, PNG has the ability to and, in fact, does operate its subsidiary casinos and instructs 

the entities on how and when to execute employment policies. The subsidiaries casino entities

must and do follow PNG’s operational instructions. Due to the pervasive control PNG both 

possesses and exercises over the employees at each of its casinos (both directly and indirectly), 

PNG is a joint employer of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, along with each respective 

subsidiary casino entity, like Defendant HC Joliet.

11. There is no material difference between the manner in which PNG treats each of its 

casino properties or the Plaintiff (and those who are similarly situated to him) who work at each 

of the PNG casino properties. Each of the casino properties is akin to a regional office of PNG’s

nationwide gaming operation with PNG in control and directing the policies and procedures across 

the country that affect the day-to-day lives of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:4
5

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

12. At all relevant times, PNG, with and through the individual subsidiary casino 

entities, jointly employed each Plaintiff (and other similarly situated employees) because: 

a. PNG had the right to and did exercise control over the hiring and firing of 

Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees; 

b. PNG had the right to and did supervise the work schedules, conditions of 

employment, and the manner in which Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees 

performed their jobs; 

c. PNG had the right to and did determine the rate and method of payment for 

Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees; and

d. PNG was primarily responsible for and did maintain the employment 

records for Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees.

The Gaming License Deductions Are Unlawful and Primarily Benefit the Employers

13. As owners and operators of gaming establishments (i.e., casinos) within the State 

of Illinois, Defendants are subject to the Illinois Gambling Act, 230 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 10/1, et 

seq.

14. Pursuant to the Illinois Gambling Act, Defendants must ensure their employees 

possess Occupational Gaming Licenses in order to conduct Defendants’ casino businesses. 

Without licensed employees, Defendants’ Illinois casinos could not function. See Illinois 

Gambling Act, 230 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 10/9.

15. Pursuant to the Illinois Gambling Act’s interpreting regulations, Occupational 

Gaming Licenses cost between $1,000 and $75 for an application fee. In addition, Occupational 

Gaming Licenses cost $50 for an annual license fee. See Ill. Admin. Code tit. 86, § 3000.210.

16. Defendants have established a uniform gaming license deduction policy that 

governs all employees at its Illinois casinos.

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:5
6

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

17. Under this policy, Defendants deduct from their employees’ wages the amount it 

costs Defendants to initially obtain and thereafter renew the employees’ state-issued gaming 

licenses.

18. Defendants’ employees’ state-issued gaming license is primarily for the benefit or 

convenience of Defendants. Defendants’ casinos exist in a heavily regulated environment. For 

example, Defendants can only have table games in their casinos if they are operated by employees 

(table games dealers) who have the required state-issued gaming license. These state-issued 

gaming licenses are specifically required for the employee’s performance of the employer’s 

particular business. Without these state licensed employees, Defendants could not compliantly 

operate their casinos and, in turn, generate the revenues needed to support their operations and 

realize profits. Also, courts interpreting the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 531.35 (“Free and clear” 

payment; “kickbacks”) have drawn a line between costs arising from employment itself and those 

arising in the ordinary course of life. Costs that “primarily benefit the employee” are universally 

ordinary living expenses that one would incur in the course of life outside the workplace.

Occupational licensing costs—like the state-issued gaming license at issue here—arise out of 

employment rather than the ordinary course of life. To that end, Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated employees have no use for their gaming license in the ordinary course of life outside the 

workplace. Therefore, Defendants’ employees’ state-issued gaming license primarily benefits the 

employer, not the employee.

19. Given that Defendants’ gaming license deductions primarily benefit Defendants (as 

opposed to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees), Defendants may not deduct the gaming 

license costs from employees’ wages to the extent they create a minimum wage violation under 

the terms of the FLSA.

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:6
7

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

20. For Defendants’ many employees, like Plaintiff, who are paid a direct cash wage 

of $7.25 per hour (the federally required minimum wage) or less, which include, among others, 

Defendants’ tipped employees (like Plaintiff) for whom Defendants pay a sub-minimum direct 

cash wage and claim an FLSA section 3(m) tip credit, this gaming license deduction is unlawful 

because it necessarily reduces the employee’s earnings below the required minimum wage or 

overtime compensation in the workweeks in which Defendants make the deduction, resulting in 

violations of the FLSA.

21. As the Department of Labor has explained, when an employer claims an FLSA 

section 3(m) tip credit, the tipped employee is considered to have been paid only the minimum 

wage for all non-overtime hours worked in a tipped occupation and the employer may not take 

deductions because any such deduction reduces the tipped employee’s wages below the minimum 

wage.

22. This is not the first time a Court has considered the applicability of the FLSA to the 

common casino industry practice of deducting the costs of obtaining and renewing gaming licenses 

from employees’ wages in the context of minimum wage violations. 

23. In Lockett v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (W.D. Mo. 2019), 

the Court found “[t]he necessity of a gaming license arises out of employment, and therefore, it 

primarily benefits Defendants, as employers. Accordingly, the FLSA prohibits the deduction of 

any cost or fee for the gaming license.” Id. at 1049. In Lockett, the Court likewise found that, 

because the named plaintiffs were tipped employees earning a direct cash wage of $7.24 or less, 

any deduction necessarily created a minimum wage violation. Id. at 1048-49. 

24. In Lilley v. IOC-Kansas City, Inc., 2019 WL 5847841 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2019), 

the Court found “considering Plaintiffs' factual allegations in the context of the DOL regulations 

and caselaw, the gaming license fee is a cost arising from employment and not arising in the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:7
8

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

ordinary course of life. Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden at this early stage in the litigation to 

plead facts that would support the conclusion that the gaming license fee primarily benefits 

Defendant and, therefore, may not be deducted from wages to the extent the fee brings an 

employee’s pay below the minimum wage required by the FLSA and [Missouri Minimum Wage 

Law].” Id. at *3.

25. Likewise, the Department of Labor announced in November 2018 that it had 

completed an investigation and concluded that a casino operator’s deductions made from 

employees’ wages to cover its costs for individual employee’s casino gaming licenses created 

minimum wage violations when those deductions brought the employee’s pay below the federal 

minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. In that case, the casino operator was required to pay $175,128 

in back wages and damages to 889 employees at its casinos.

26. With respect to Plaintiff Cruz-Perez, Defendants have deducted the $50 cost of 

renewing the gaming license each year he has worked for Defendants. For example, during a payperiod beginning on June 22, 2018 and ending on July 5, 2018, Defendants deducted $10 of the 

$50 gaming license renewal fee from Plaintiff Cruz-Perez’s wages. At the time, Mr. Cruz earned 

a direct cash wage of $6.88 per hour. Given that, pursuant to the FLSA, Defendants claimed a tip 

credit in the amount of the difference between the direct cash wage ($6.88 per hour) and the federal 

minimum wage ($7.25) (and assuming the tip credit is valid, which Plaintiff does not concede and 

Defendants bear the burden of establishing), Defendants effectively only paid Plaintiff Cruz-Perez, 

at most, $7.25 per hour. As a result, any deduction causes a minimum wage violation under the 

FLSA.

27. Likewise, in the pay-period beginning on July 24, 2017 and ending on August 6, 

2017, Defendants deducted $10 of the $50 gaming license renewal fee from Plaintiff Cruz-Perez’s 

wages. At the time, Mr. Cruz earned a direct cash wage of $6.88 per hour. Given that, pursuant 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:8
9

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

to the FLSA, Defendants claimed a tip credit in the amount of the difference between the direct 

cash wage ($6.88 per hour) and the federal minimum wage ($7.25) (and assuming the tip credit is 

valid, which Plaintiff does not concede and Defendants bear the burden of establishing), 

Defendants effectively only paid Plaintiff Cruz-Perez, at most, $7.25 per hour. As a result, any 

deduction causes a minimum wage violation under the FLSA.

28. These allegations apply with equal force to the claims under the IMWL given that, 

because Plaintiff Cruz-Perez’s hourly rate was lower than the FLSA’s $7.25 per hour minimum 

wage, it was likewise lower than the IMWL’s $8.25 (in place from 2017-2019) and $9.25 (in place 

in 2020) minimum wage rates.

29. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), “Any employer who violates the provisions of 

section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the 

amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may 

be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” As Defendants violated the FLSA’s 

minimum wage and/or overtime compensation provisions through an illegal gaming license 

deduction, Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are entitled to recover their unpaid minimum 

wages or overtime compensation, along with an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.

30. Defendants’ FLSA violations alleged herein were willful in that Defendants either 

knew of the specific FLSA requirements and prohibitions at issue at the time of the alleged 

violations and intentionally did not comply with them, or showed reckless disregard for the matter 

of whether their conduct violated the FLSA.

Defendants Auto-Deducted 30-Minute Periods from Employees’ Wages for Meal Periods 

Despite Failing to Provide Bona Fide Meal Periods

31. During a span of several months in 2017, Defendants automatically deducted 30-

minute periods from the wages of Plaintiff Cruz-Perez and all other similarly situated employees. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:9
10

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

32. However, Plaintiff Cruz-Perez and all other similarly situated employees were not 

provided a 30-minute bona fide meal period.

33. Instead, Plaintiff Cruz-Perez and all other similarly situated employees simply 

worked their scheduled shifts and, then, without authorization (written or otherwise), Defendants 

automatically deducted one 30-minute period from the wages of Plaintiff Cruz-Perez and all other 

similarly situated employees. 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

34. Plaintiff brings Count I, the FLSA claim arising out of Defendants’ unlawful 

gaming license deduction policy, as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 

on behalf of himself individually and the following collective action class:

Fair Labor Standards Act Collective – Gaming License Deduction

All persons employed and paid a direct cash wage of $7.25 per hour or less at PNG 

casinos Hollywood Casino Joliet, Argosy Casino Alton, and/or Hollywood Casino 

Aurora, and for whom a deduction was taken from their wages for any amount 

associated with initially obtaining or thereafter renewing a state-issued gaming 

license, at any time from three years preceding the filing of this Class and Collective 

Action Complaint to the present.

35. Plaintiff brings Count IV, the FLSA claim arising out of Defendants’ unlawful 30-

minute meal period deduction policy, as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b) on behalf of himself individually and the following collective action class:

Fair Labor Standards Act Collective – Meal Period Deduction

All persons employed and paid a direct cash wage of $7.25 per hour or less at PNG 

casinos Hollywood Casino Joliet, Argosy Casino Alton, and/or Hollywood Casino 

Aurora, and for whom an automatic 30-minute deduction was taken from their 

wages for a meal period that did not occur, at any time from three years preceding 

the filing of this Class and Collective Action Complaint to the present.

36. Plaintiff’s FLSA claims (Counts I and IV) may be pursued by those who opt-in to 

this case, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:10
11

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

similarly situated, seek relief on a collective basis challenging Defendants’ above-described FLSA 

violations. The number and identity of other plaintiffs yet to opt-in and consent to be party 

plaintiffs may be determined from Defendants’ records, and potential opt-in plaintiffs may easily 

and quickly be notified of the pendency of this action by U.S. Mail, email, text message, and/or 

posting an approved notice.

37. Plaintiff brings Count II, the IWPCA claim arising out of Defendants’ unlawful 

gaming license deduction policy, as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 

on behalf of himself individually and the following class:

Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act Class – Gaming License Deduction

All persons employed at PNG casinos Hollywood Casino Joliet, Argosy Casino 

Alton, and/or Hollywood Casino Aurora, for whom a deduction was taken from 

their wages for any amount associated with initially obtaining or thereafter 

renewing a state-issued gaming license, at any time from 10 years preceding the 

filing of this Class and Collective Action Complaint to the present.

38. Plaintiff brings Count III, the IMWL claim arising out of Defendants’ unlawful 

gaming license deduction policy, as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 

on behalf of himself individually and the following class:

Illinois Minimum Wage Law Class – Gaming License Deduction

All persons employed and paid a direct cash wage equal to or less than the 

applicable Illinois minimum wage at PNG casinos Hollywood Casino Joliet, 

Argosy Casino Alton, and/or Hollywood Casino Aurora, for whom a deduction was 

taken from their wages for any amount associated with initially obtaining or 

thereafter renewing a state-issued gaming license, at any time from three years 

preceding the filing of this Class and Collective Action Complaint to the present.

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:11
12

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

39. Plaintiff brings Count V, the IWPCA claim arising out of Defendants’ unlawful 30-

minute meal period deduction policy, as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23 on behalf of himself individually and the following class:

Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act Class – Meal Period Deduction

All persons employed at PNG casinos Hollywood Casino Joliet, Argosy Casino 

Alton, and/or Hollywood Casino Aurora, for whom a deduction was taken from 

their wages for a 30-minute meal period that did not occur, at any time from 10

years preceding the filing of this Class and Collective Action Complaint to the 

present.

40. Plaintiff brings Count VI, the IMWL claim arising out of Defendants’ unlawful 30-

minute meal period deduction policy, as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23 on behalf of himself individually and the following class:

Illinois Minimum Wage Law Class – Meal Period Deduction

All persons employed and paid a direct cash wage equal to or less than the 

applicable Illinois minimum wage at PNG casinos Hollywood Casino Joliet, 

Argosy Casino Alton, and/or Hollywood Casino Aurora, for whom a deduction was 

taken from their wages for a 30-minute meal period that did not occur, at any time 

from three years preceding the filing of this Class and Collective Action Complaint 

to the present.

41. Plaintiff’s Rule 23 claims, described in detail below, satisfy the numerosity, 

commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority requirements of a class action pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23. 

42. These classes each number in the thousands of persons. As a result, joinder of all 

class members in a single action is impracticable. Class members may be informed of the 

pendency of this action through U.S. Mail, email, text message, and/or posting an approved notice.

43. There are common questions of fact and law to the classes that predominate over 

any questions affecting only individual class members. The questions of law and fact common to 

the classes arising from Defendants’ actions include, without limitation, the following:

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:12
13

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

a. Whether Defendants’ employees’ state-issued gaming license is primarily 

for Defendants’ benefit or convenience;

b. Whether Defendants’ gaming license fee deductions cut into the minimum 

or overtime wages required to be paid these employees;

c. Whether Defendants’ meal period deductions cut into the minimum wages 

requires to be paid these employees;

d. Whether Defendants’ gaming license deduction policy constitutes a willful 

violation by Defendants of applicable laws;

e. Whether Defendants’ meal period deduction policy constitutes a willful 

violation by Defendants of applicable laws; and

f. Whether Defendants can produce evidence of a consent to the deductions 

given in writing at the time of the deductions.

44. 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.

45. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the respective classes in that class members 

have been employed in the same or similar position as Plaintiff and were subject to the same or 

similar unlawful policies and practices as Plaintiff.

46. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication to

Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

classes. The presentation of separate actions by individual class members could create a risk of 

inconsistent and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:13
14

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendants, and/or substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect their 

interests.

47. Plaintiff is an adequate representative because Plaintiff is a member of each of the 

respective classes that he seeks to represent, and Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the 

interests of the members of those classes. The interests of the members of the classes will be fairly 

and adequately protected by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s undersigned counsel, who are experienced 

prosecuting complex wage and hour, employment, and class action litigation.

48. Maintenance of this action is a class action is a fair and efficient method for 

adjudication of this controversy. It would be impracticable and undesirable for each member of 

the classes 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

29 U.S.C. § 216(b)

Gaming License Deduction Policy

49. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and all others similarly situated have been entitled to 

the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

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

overtime pay 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. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(a); 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:14
15

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

51. Defendants are subject to the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of the 

FLSA because they are both enterprises engaged in interstate commerce and their employees are 

engaged in commerce. At all relevant times, each Defendant is or has been an enterprise engaged 

in commerce or in the production of goods or services for commerce within the meaning of 29 

U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), and, upon information and belief, has had an annual gross volume of sales 

made or business done of not less than $500,000.

52. At all relevant times, Defendants were “employers” of Plaintiff and all similarly 

situated employees within the meaning of the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

53. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees were 

Defendants’ “employees” within the meaning of the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).

54. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are covered, non-exempt employees 

within the meaning of the FLSA. Accordingly, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees must 

be paid minimum wages in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 206.

55. Pursuant to the FLSA, employees are also entitled to be compensated at a rate of 

not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which such employees are employed for all 

work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).

56. Although the FLSA contains some exceptions (or exemptions) from the minimum 

wage and overtime requirements, none apply here. 

57. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are victims of uniform or substantially 

similar compensation policies and practices.

58. By deducting the cost of gaming licenses (whether initially obtaining, renewing, or 

maintaining) from the wages of Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees, Defendants have 

caused minimum wage violations given that Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are paid 

a direct cash wage of $7.25 or less. Further, the deductions are primarily for the benefit of 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:15
16

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendants (as opposed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees) such that they may not 

be deducted. 

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

mandated minimum wage within the three (3) years preceding the filing of the this Class and 

Collective Action Complaint plus periods of equitable tolling, because, as described above, 

Defendants acted willfully and knew, or showed reckless disregard of, whether their conduct was 

prohibited by the FLSA. 

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

that their 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 wages as described by Section 16(b) of the FLSA, codified 

at 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Alternatively, should the Court find Defendants acted in good faith or with 

reasonable grounds in failing to pay minimum wage, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees 

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

61. As a result of these violations of the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions, 

compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Defendants from Plaintiff and all similarly situated 

employees. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Defendants are liable for the unpaid 

minimum wages along with an additional amount as liquidated damages, pre-judgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court enter judgment for Plaintiff individually and

on behalf of all similarly situated employees awarding the following relief:

a. damages for unpaid minimum wages and overtime under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

b. reasonable attorneys’ fees under the FLSA;

c. liquidated damages and/or pre-judgment interest;

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:16
17

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

d. costs of suit under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); and

e. any further relief that the Court may deem just and equitable.

COUNT II

Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act

820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/14

Gaming License Deduction Policy

62. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have been party to 

an agreement with Defendants to be paid a set hourly rate for each hour worked within the meaning 

of the IWPCA. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/2. Pursuant to the agreement, Defendants are 

not permitted to deduct the cost of gaming licenses from the wages of Plaintiff and similarly 

situated employees. 

63. At all relevant times, Defendants have been the “employers” of Plaintiff and 

similarly situated employees within the meaning of the IWPCA. Id.

64. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have been 

“employees” of Defendants within the meaning of the IWPCA. Id.

65. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are victims of uniform or substantially 

similar compensation policies and practices.

66. By deducting the cost of gaming licenses (whether initially obtaining, renewing, or 

maintaining) from the wages of Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees, Defendants have 

violated the IWPCA’s prohibition on wage deductions. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/9.

67. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees have not provided Defendants their 

express written consent to the gaming license deductions. Alternatively, to the extent Defendants 

may claim a document constitutes written consent, the consent was not freely given and was not 

given at the time the deduction was made. Id. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:17
18

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

68. Further, the gaming license deductions are primarily for the benefit of Defendants 

(as opposed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees) because they arise completely from 

Defendants’ business and have no use in ordinary life. 

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

gaming license deductions plus 2% of the deductions accruing each month within the 10 years 

preceding the filing of the Class and Collective Action Complaint. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 

115/14.

70. As a result of these violations of the IWPCA’s wage deduction provisions 

compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Defendants from Plaintiff and all similarly situated 

employees. Accordingly, pursuant to 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/14, Defendants are liable for 

the gaming license deductions plus 2% of the deductions accruing each month, reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, and costs of this action. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/14.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court enter judgment for Plaintiff individually and 

on behalf of all similarly situated employees awarding the following relief:

a. damages for unlawful gaming license deductions plus interest pursuant to the 

IWPCA;

b. reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the IWPCA;

c. any further relief that the Court may deem just and equitable.

COUNT III

Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law

820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/12

Gaming License Deduction Policy

71. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have entitled to the 

benefits and protections of the IMWL. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/4.

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:18
19

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

72. At all relevant times, Defendants have been the “employers” of Plaintiff and 

similarly situated employees within the meaning of the IMWL. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 

105/3.

73. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have been 

“employees” of Defendants within the meaning of the IMWL. Id.

74. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are victims of uniform or substantially 

similar compensation policies and practices.

75. By deducting the cost of gaming licenses (whether initially obtaining, renewing, or 

maintaining) from the wages of Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees, Defendants have 

violated the IMWL’s minimum wage provisions. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/4.

76. Further, the gaming license deductions are primarily for the benefit of Defendants 

(as opposed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees) because they arise completely from 

Defendants’ business and have no use in ordinary life. The gaming license deductions may not be 

considered wages because they primarily benefit the Defendants.

77. Given that Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees are paid at or below 

the Illinois minimum wage, every deduction is necessarily a minimum wage violation. Here, the 

gaming license deductions created minimum wage violations in each work week during which 

they occurred. 

78. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are entitled to damages equal to three 

times (treble) the gaming license deductions plus 5% of the deductions accruing each month within 

the three (3) years preceding the filing of the Class and Collective Action Complaint. See 820 Ill. 

Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/12.

79. As a result of these violations of the IMWL minimum wage provisions,

compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Defendants from Plaintiff and all similarly situated 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:19
20

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

employees. Accordingly, pursuant to See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/12, Defendants are liable 

for three times (treble) the gaming license deductions plus 5% of the deductions accruing each 

month, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of this action. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/12.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court enter judgment for Plaintiff individually and 

on behalf of all similarly situated employees awarding the following relief:

a. treble damages for unpaid minimum wages plus interest pursuant to the IMWL;

b. reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the IMWL;

c. any further relief that the Court may deem just and equitable.

COUNT IV

Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

29 U.S.C. § 216(b)

30-Minute Meal Period Deduction Policy

80. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and all others similarly situated have been entitled to 

the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

81. The FLSA regulates, among other things, the payment of minimum wage and 

overtime pay 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. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(a); 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

82. Defendants are subject to the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of the 

FLSA because they are both enterprises engaged in interstate commerce and their employees are 

engaged in commerce. At all relevant times, each Defendant is or has been an enterprise engaged 

in commerce or in the production of goods or services for commerce within the meaning of 29 

U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), and, upon information and belief, has had an annual gross volume of sales 

made or business done of not less than $500,000.

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:20
21

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

83. At all relevant times, Defendants were “employers” of Plaintiff and all similarly 

situated employees within the meaning of the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

84. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees were 

Defendants’ “employees” within the meaning of the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).

85. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are covered, non-exempt employees 

within the meaning of the FLSA. Accordingly, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees must 

be paid minimum wages in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 206.

86. Pursuant to the FLSA, employees are also entitled to be compensated at a rate of 

not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which such employees are employed for all 

work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).

87. Although the FLSA contains some exceptions (or exemptions) from the minimum 

wage and overtime requirements, none apply here.

88. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are victims of uniform or substantially 

similar compensation policies and practices.

89. By deducting a 30-minute meal period from the wages of Plaintiff and all similarly 

situated employees, Defendants have caused minimum wage violations given that Plaintiff and all 

similarly situated employees are paid a direct cash wage of $7.25 or less. Further, the 30-minute 

meal periods did not occur and, in any event, could certainly not be credited as a bona fide meal 

period such that Defendants simply failed to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees for 

30 minutes of wages. 

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

mandated minimum wage within the three (3) years preceding the filing of the this Class and 

Collective Action Complaint plus periods of equitable tolling, because, as described above, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:21
22

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendants acted willfully and knew, or showed reckless disregard of, whether their conduct was 

prohibited by the FLSA. 

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

that their 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 wages as described by Section 16(b) of the FLSA, codified 

at 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Alternatively, should the Court find Defendants acted in good faith or with 

reasonable grounds in failing to pay minimum wage, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees 

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

92. As a result of these violations of the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions, 

compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Defendants from Plaintiff and all similarly situated 

employees. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Defendants are liable for the unpaid 

minimum wages along with an additional amount as liquidated damages, pre-judgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court enter judgment for Plaintiff individually and 

on behalf of all similarly situated employees awarding the following relief:

a. damages for unpaid minimum wages and overtime under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

b. reasonable attorneys’ fees under the FLSA;

c. liquidated damages and/or pre-judgment interest;

d. costs of suit under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); and

e. any further relief that the Court may deem just and equitable.

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:22
23

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT V

Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act

820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/14

30-Minute Meal Period Deduction Policy

93. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have been party to 

an agreement with Defendants to be paid a set hourly rate for each hour worked within the meaning 

of the IWPCA. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/2. Pursuant to the agreement, Defendants are 

not permitted to deduct a 30-minute period for a meal period (a meal period which never occurred) 

from the wages of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. 

94. At all relevant times, Defendants have been the “employers” of Plaintiff and 

similarly situated employees within the meaning of the IWPCA. Id.

95. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have been 

“employees” of Defendants within the meaning of the IWPCA. Id.

96. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are victims of uniform or substantially 

similar compensation policies and practices.

97. By deducting a 30-minute meal period from the wages of Plaintiff and all similarly 

situated employees for a meal period which did not occur, Defendants have violated the IWPCA’s 

prohibition on wage deductions. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/9.

98. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees have not provided Defendants their 

express written consent to the 30-minute meal period deductions (particularly because the meal 

periods did not occur). Alternatively, to the extent Defendants may claim a document constitutes 

written consent, the consent was not freely given and was not given at the time the deduction was 

made. Id. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:23
24

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

99. Further, the 30-minute meal period deductions are primarily for the benefit of 

Defendants (as opposed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees) because no bona fide 

meal periods were provided. 

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

wages lost to the meal period deductions plus 2% of the deductions accruing each month within 

the 10 years preceding the filing of the Class and Collective Action Complaint. See 820 Ill. Comp. 

Stat. Ann. 115/14.

101. As a result of these violations of the IWPCA’s wage deduction provisions 

compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Defendants from Plaintiff and all similarly situated 

employees. Accordingly, pursuant to 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/14, Defendants are liable for 

the 30-minute meal period deductions plus 2% of the deductions accruing each month, reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, and costs of this action. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 115/14.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court enter judgment for Plaintiff individually and 

on behalf of all similarly situated employees awarding the following relief:

a. damages for unlawful meal period deductions plus interest pursuant to the IWPCA;

b. reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the IWPCA;

c. any further relief that the Court may deem just and equitable.

COUNT VI

Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law

820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/12

30-Minute Meal Period Deduction Policy

102. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have been entitled 

to the benefits and protections of the IMWL. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/4.

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:24
25

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

103. At all relevant times, Defendants have been the “employers” of Plaintiff and 

similarly situated employees within the meaning of the IMWL. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 

105/3.

104. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have been 

“employees” of Defendants within the meaning of the IMWL. Id.

105. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are victims of uniform or substantially 

similar compensation policies and practices.

106. By deducting a 30-minute meal period from the wages of Plaintiff and all similarly 

situated employees, Defendants have caused minimum wage violations. Further, the 30-minute 

meal periods did not occur and, in any event, could certainly not be credited as a bona fide meal 

period such that Defendants simply failed to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees for 

30 minutes of wages. As a result, Defendants have violated the IMWL’s minimum wage 

provisions. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/4.

107. Given that Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees are paid at or below 

the Illinois minimum wage, every deduction is necessarily a minimum wage violation. Here, the 

30-minute meal period deductions (for meal periods that did not occur) created minimum wage 

violations in each work week during which they occurred. Id. 

108. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are entitled to damages equal to three 

times (treble) the meal period deductions plus 5% of the deductions accruing each month within 

the three (3) years preceding the filing of the Class and Collective Action Complaint. See 820 Ill. 

Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/12.

109. As a result of these violations of the IMWL minimum wage provisions, 

compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Defendants from Plaintiff and all similarly situated 

employees. Accordingly, pursuant to the IMWL, Defendants are liable for three times (treble) the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:25
26

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

gaming license deductions plus 5% of the deductions accruing each month, reasonable attorneys’ 

fees, and costs of this action. See 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/12.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court enter judgment for Plaintiff individually and 

on behalf of all similarly situated employees awarding the following relief:

a. treble damages for unpaid minimum wages plus interest pursuant to the IMWL;

b. reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the IMWL;

c. any further relief that the Court may deem just and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:26
27

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Dated: April 28, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

WERMAN SALAS P.C.

/s/ Douglas M. Werman

Douglas M. Werman

77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-419-1008

Facsimile: 312-419-1025

Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com

STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP

George A. Hanson, MO Bar No. 43450

pro hac vice application forthcoming

Alexander T. Ricke, IL Bar No. 6313820 

pro hac vice application forthcoming

460 Nichols Road, Suite 200

Kansas City, Missouri 64112

Telephone: 816-714-7100

Facsimile: 816-714-7101

Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com

Email: ricke@stuevesiegel.com

McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.

Ryan L. McClelland, MO Bar No. 59343

pro hac vice application forthcoming 

Michael J. Rahmberg, MO Bar No. 66979 

pro hac vice application forthcoming

The Flagship Building

200 Westwoods Drive

Liberty, Missouri 64068

Telephone: 816-781-0002

Facsimile: 816-781-1984

Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com

Email: mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-02577 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:27