IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DOUGLAS CANAS and VENESSA 

MESCHINO, on behalf of themselves and all 

other plaintiffs similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS 

CORP., SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS 

CORP., and KANSAS CITY SAUSAGE 

COMPANY, LLC 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-04937 

Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS 

AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

Defendants Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp., Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp., and Kansas 

City Sausage Company, LLC (“Defendants”) by and through their counsel, file their Answer to 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint (hereinafter “Second 

Amended Complaint”) as follows: 

Nature of Action 

1. The COVID-19 Pandemic has caused great risk and alarm to factory workers 

throughout the United States and, in particular, to Defendant Smithfield’s employees. The BBC 

recently referred to Smithfield as having “America’s biggest outbreak” of COVID-19.1 The Kane 

County Health Department took the unusual step of shutting down a Smithfield facility as a result 

1

 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52311877
2 

of the COVID-19 outbreak.2 In South Dakota, it was reported that Smithfield infections accounted 

for 55% of the COVID-19 infection rate in the entire state.

3

 And, during the first half of 2020, 

there were alarming reports on NBC News of a Smithfield employee passing from COVID-19.4

As a result of the allegedly unsafe working conditions, Smithfield employees filed a highlypublicized lawsuit over workplace conditions.5

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that the BBC published a story about a COVID outbreak at its facility in 

Sioux Falls, South Dakota in April and that the BBC reported at that time that the outbreak 

accounted for over half of the COVID-19 cases in South Dakota, that the Chicago Tribune reported 

on a temporary plant closure at Smithfield’s St. Charles, Illinois facility, that NBC reported about 

a social media post made by a family member of a Smithfield employee who died from COVID19, and that ABC ran a story about a lawsuit filed in Missouri over working conditions which the 

court dismissed. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 1 and maintain that the 

allegations in Paragraph 1 have no connection to the claims in this case whatsoever. 

2. Despite these dangerous work conditions, Smithfield still needed its workers to show 

up to work at its slaughterhouses and distribution centers because it is an enormous pork producer. 

As a result, during the Pandemic, it promised its workforce a $5 per hour “Responsibility Bonus” to 

show up to work. This bonus was well-deserved: these workers were literally risking their lives by 

potentially contracting COVID-19. 

2

 https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/ct-abn-smithfield-foods-covid-19-complaints-st20200716-juh2l5rmgfeqdjuxgqdozqtczi-story.html

3

 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52311877

4

 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-heartbroken-smithfield-foods-response-grandfather-s-deathcoronavirus-n1202576

5

 https://abcnews.go.com/US/smithfield-foods-employee-sues-working-conditions-amidcoronavirus/story?id=70334480
3 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that Smithfield provided some of its workforce with a “Responsibility 

Bonus” as a gift for showing up for work or taking approved leave during the 

pandemic. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2. 

3. The law required that when Smithfield’s workers received the Responsibility 

Bonus, their overtime rate (the so called “regular rate”) would also take this payment into account. 

However, Defendant did not factor the Responsibility Bonus into the overtime rate and, therefore, 

substantially underpaid its workforce when they worked overtime. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

4. As a result, this civil action is brought by the above-named plaintiffs who brings 

this class and collective action claim for overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and under the Illinois Minimum 

Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 ILCS § 105/1 et seq pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro 23. 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiffs purport to bring this case under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

“FLSA” and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law “IMWL”. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs or any 

class Plaintiffs seek to represent are entitled to any remedy or relief under those statutes. 

Parties 

5. Plaintiffs worked as hourly employees for Defendant Smithfield at its Bolingbrook, 

Illinois location.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Second Amended Complaint 

only as to Defendant Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. Defendants Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp. 

and Kansas City Sausage Company, LLC deny the allegations of Paragraph 5. 
4 

6. Defendant Smithfield is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 200 Commerce 

St. Smithfield, Virginia 23430. Smithfield is “a global food company with farms, facilities and 

offices in the United States, Europe and Mexico.6 ” This includes over 40 production plants, 6 

distribution centers, 5 corporate offices, 20 Direct Store Delivery locations, and 16 slaughterhouses 

located in the United States. 

ANSWER; Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that each Defendant is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 200 

Commerce Street, Smithfield, Virginia and has plants and distribution centers located throughout 

the country. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6. 

7. Defendants are an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods 

for commerce within the meaning of Section 203(s)(1)(A) of the FLSA. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

8. During the last three years, Defendants’ annual gross volume of sales made or 

business done has exceeded $500,000, exclusive of excise tax. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

9. Defendants are the Plaintiffs’ “employer” as that term is defined by the FLSA. 29 

U.S.C. § 203(d). 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendant Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. only admits that it employed Plaintiffs. The 

remaining Defendants deny that they employed Plaintiffs. 

6 https://www.smithfieldfoods.com/about-smithfield/our-operations last visited August 17, 2020. 
5 

10. Defendants are the Plaintiffs’ “employer” as defined by the IMWL. 820 ILCS 

105/3(c). 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendant Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. only admits that it employed Plaintiffs. The 

remaining Defendants deny that they employed Plaintiffs. 

11. Plaintiffs were Defendants’ “employee” as that term is defined by the FLSA. 29 

U.S.C. §203(e)(1). 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 11 the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendant Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. only admits that it employed Plaintiffs. The 

remaining Defendants deny that they employed Plaintiffs. 

12. Plaintiffs were Defendants’ “employee” as that term is defined by the IMWL. 820 

ILCS 105/3(d). 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendant Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. only admits that it employed Plaintiffs. The 

remaining Defendants deny that they employed Plaintiffs. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

13. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and 

by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

ANSWER: Defendants admit that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

14. Venue is proper in this Judicial District as all of the events arising out of this case 

arose in this Judicial District. 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants do not challenge the venue in this Court. 
6 

Factual Allegations 

15. Plaintiffs worked for Smithfield within the past three years. 

ANSWER: Defendant Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. admits the allegations of Paragraph 

15 of the Second Amended Complaint. Defendants Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp. and Kansas City 

Sausage Company, LLC deny the allegations in Paragraph 15. 

16. To incentivize employees to work during the Covid-19 pandemic, Smithfield paid 

Plaintiffs and other employees an additional premium rate per hour called “Responsibility Bonus”. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

17. For instance, Plaintiffs received additional “Responsibility Bonus” of $5.00 per 

hour for each non-overtime hour worked. By example: when Canas worked approximately 40 

hours he would receive $200 (40 hours * $5 per hour), but during the work week of 7/6/2020-

7/12/2020 he worked 35.8 hours and received $179.40 (35.8 hours* $5.00 per hour). 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that during the workweek ending 7/12/20 Plaintiff Canas received $179.40 

in responsibility pay based on 35.8 recorded hours worked. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 17 and deny any inference arising from these allegations that the 

Responsibility Bonus was contingent on hours worked. 

18. Smithfield stated in an April 24, 2020 press release “During this pandemic, we’ve 

added “Responsibility Bonus” premiums to supplement [employee] base rates by more than $3.00 

per hour on average.”7

7 https://www.smithfieldfoods.com/press-room/company-news/smithfield-foods-addresses-misinformation-as-itconfronts-covid-19 last visited August, 17, 2020. 
7 

ANSWER: In response to the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that the quoted language is from the press release cited in the Second 

Amended Complaint. Defendants deny any inferences arising from the allegations that are 

inconsistent with the entire press release. 

19. The “Responsibility Bonus” is given to “all of our production and distribution 

center team members” Id. 

ANSWER: In response to the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that the allegations paraphrase portions of the press release cited in the 

Second Amended Complaint. Defendants deny any inferences arising from the allegations that 

are inconsistent with the entire press release. 

20. In this same press release Smithfield claims that under its wage policies: “Overtime 

wage rates are paid at one and one-half times base wage rates” Id. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

21. However, the FLSA and IMWL require overtime wages of one and one-half times 

employee’s “regular rate” of pay, not “base pay,” for all overtime hours. 

ANSWER; The allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Second Amended Complaint contain legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants 

deny the allegations. 

22. The “Responsibility Bonus” should have been included when calculating Plaintiffs’ 

and other employees’ regular rate of pay when determining overtime compensation. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 
8 

23. The regular rate is computed by dividing an employee’s total compensation in the 

workweek by the total hour worked in the workweek and the regular rate includes all renumeration 

for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee. 

ANSWER; The allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Second Amended Complaint contain legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants 

deny the allegations. 

24. Smithfield fails to include the “Responsibility Bonus” when calculating Plaintiffs’ 

and other employee’s overtime rates. 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that they did not include the “Responsibility Bonus” in Plaintiffs’ overtime 

rate calculation and maintain that they were not required to. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 24. 

25. This failure results in Plaintiffs and others similarly situated being deprived of their 

full overtime wages. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

26. By way of example: 

(a) During the pay period of 6/15/2020-6/21/2020 Canas’ base rate of pay was 

$19.50 per hour. Canas worked 2.45 hours of overtime and received $200 in 

“Responsibility Bonus”. However, his overtime rate was only $29.25 ($19.50 per 

hour * 1.5). The overtime rate should have been $36.32 because the regular rate is 

$24.21 per hour.8 This resulted in an underpayment of approximately $17.32; 

8

 The total compensation is $1,027.78: (($19.50 per hour * 42.45 hours)+$200). Thus, the regular rate is $24.21 

($1,027.78 / 42.45 hours); and the overtime rate is actually $36.32 (1.5 * $24.21). 
9 

(b) During the pay period of 6/22/2020-6/28/2020 Canas’ base rate of pay was 

$19.50 per hour. He worked 8.35 hours of overtime and received $200 in 

“Responsibility Bonus”. However, his overtime rate was only $29.25 and not 

$35.45.9 This resulted in an underpayment of approximately $51.77. 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiff Canas’ base rate of pay was $19.50 during the two workweeks 

cited, that he recorded 2.45 hours of overtime during the week ending 6/21/20, and 8.35 hours of 

overtime during the week ending 6/28/20. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 

26. 

27. Plaintiffs performed their job responsibilities for Defendant in the State of Illinois. 

ANSWER: Defendant Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. only admits the allegations of 

Paragraph 27 of the Second Amended Complaint. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations 

of Paragraph 27. 

28. Other similarly situated employees have been employed by the Defendant and have 

not been paid the required overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

29. The named Plaintiffs, and similarly situated employees, were not exempt from the 

overtime provisions of the FLSA. 

9 The total compensation is $1,142.83: (($19.50 per hour * 48.35 hours)+$200). Thus, the regular rate is $23.64 

($1,142.83/ 48.35 hours); and the overtime rate is actually $35.46 (1.5 * $23.64).
10 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiffs were classified as non-exempt. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 29. 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

30. Plaintiffs seek to maintain this suit as a nationwide Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§216(b) and as a Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 on behalf of himself and all other nonexempt employees who were not fully compensated for overtime hours worked. 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiffs purport to bring this lawsuit as a class and collective action 

but deny that the class or collective that Plaintiffs seek to represent is similarly situated or that 

class certification is proper. 

31. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees in the asserted 

class regularly worked over 40 hours per week but were not fully paid their overtime hours at one 

and one-half times their regular rate of pay. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

32. Plaintiffs and asserted members of the Collective and Class are similarly situated 

because, inter alia, they all were not paid the required overtime rate of one and one-half times their 

regular rate of pay for all work in excess of 40 hours per week and had such rights undermined 

and neglected by Defendants’ unlawful practices and policies. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 
11 

33. Defendants have encouraged, permitted, and required the Class and Collective to 

work without required overtime compensation of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

34. Defendants have known that Plaintiffs and other members of the Class and 

Collective have been deprived of required overtime compensation. Nonetheless, Defendants have 

operated under a scheme to deny the Plaintiffs and the Class and Collective the required 

compensation of one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for work in excess of 40 hours. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

35. There are estimated to be thousands of other current and former employees within 

the asserted class for this action during the material time who are similarly situated to Plaintiffs. 

With such numbers of similar claims for unpaid compensation, a class action is superior procedure 

for adjudicating such claims. Plaintiffs request that the Court authorize and supervise notice to the 

members of the asserted classes so that all claims may be resolved efficiently in a single 

proceeding. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Second Amended 

Complaint and further deny that the proposed class or collective is similarly situated or that a class 

or collective should be certified. 

36. The records, if any, should be in the custody or control of Defendants concerning the 

members of the asserted class, the number of hours actually worked by Plaintiffs and all other 

similarly situated employees, and the compensation actually paid, or not paid, to such employees. 
12 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that they maintain records of Plaintiffs’ pay and work hours. Defendants 

deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36. 

37. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each proposed class 

member and has retained counsel that is experienced in class actions and employment litigation. 

Plaintiffs have no interest that is contrary to, or in conflict with, members of the class. 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiffs have retained counsel that is experienced in employment 

litigation. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 37. 

COUNT I - FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 

(Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf of All 

Similarly Situated Employees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216) 

38. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-37. 

ANSWER: Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 37 as 

though fully restated in response to Paragraph 38. 

39. Under the FLSA, Plaintiffs and the Collective were entitled to be paid at the 

overtime rate by Defendant for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours each work week at one 

and one-half times their regular rate of pay. 

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that employees who are non-exempt are entitled to overtime under the 

FLSA for hours worked over 40. Defendants deny any inference that it failed to pay Plaintiffs 

overtime in accordance with the FLSA and denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 39. 
13 

40. The proper overtime rate is computed by multiplying 1.5 times an employee’s 

regular hourly rate. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

41. Defendants failed to compensate the Collective at the proper overtime rate for all 

the work they performed in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the FLSA. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

42. Due to Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, the FLSA Class is entitled to recover 

from Defendant their unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and 

the costs of this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.§216(b). 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 43. Regarding the unnumbered 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs requests the following relief, individually and on behalf of 

similarly situated employees: 

A. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated the overtime wage provision of 

the FLSA as to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees; 

B. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ violations of the FLSA was willful; 

B. Unpaid overtime compensation; 

B. An additional amount equal as liquidated damages; 

C. Prejudgment interest; 

D. Reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. § 216(b); and 

E. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just. 
14 

 “WHEREFORE” paragraph that follows Paragraph 42, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are 

entitled to any of the relief sought in that paragraph or to any other remedy or relief from 

Defendants. 

COUNT II - ILLINOIS MINIMUM WAGE LAW 

(Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf of All 

Similarly Situated Employees Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro 23) 

43. Plaintiffs hereby allege and incorporate Paragraph 1 through 42 of this Complaint, 

as is fully set forth herein. 

ANSWER: Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 43 as 

though fully restated in response to Paragraph 44. 

44. This count arises from Defendants’ violation of the overtime compensation 

provisions of the IMWL, 820 ILCS § 105/1 et seq.

ANSWER: Regarding the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Second Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiffs purport to bring this count under provisions of the IMWL 

but denies that it violated any provisions of the IMWL. 

45. Under the IMWL, Defendants were and remains obligated to compensate Plaintiffs, 

and similarly situated employees, for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any individual work 

week. Overtime compensation must be paid at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the 

regular rate of pay. 

ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 46 contain legal conclusions to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 
15 

46. Plaintiffs were regularly permitted, encouraged and/or required to work in excess 

of 40 hours per week but was not compensated at the required one and one-half times his regular 

rate for such overtime work. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 47. 

47. By failing to pay overtime compensation due to Plaintiffs, Defendants willfully, 

knowingly and/or recklessly violated the IMWL which requires overtime compensation of one and 

one-half times the regular rate to be paid. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 48. 

48. As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice of withholding overtime 

compensation, Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees have been damaged in that they have 

not received wages due to them pursuant to the IMWL. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 49. 

49. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief individually and on behalf of 

similarly situated employees: 

A. A Declaratory Judgement that Defendants violated the minimum wage 

provisions of the IMWL as to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated 

employees; 

B. A declaratory judgement that Defendants’ violations of the IMWL were 

willful; 

C. Unpaid overtime compensation; 

D. A judgment of punitive damages, including treble damages and statutory 

interest of 5% per month, as provided by IMWL; 
16 

E. A judgement of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in filing this 

action; and 

F. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just. 

ANSWER: Regarding the unnumbered “WHEREFORE” paragraph that follows Paragraph 48, 

Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth in that paragraph or to any 

other remedy or relief from Defendants. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all questions of act raised by this Complaint, 

including FLSA claims. 

ANSWER: Regarding Plaintiffs’ unnumbered demand for a jury trial, Defendants admit only 

that Plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial on their claims to the extent those claims survive pretrial 

dismissal. Defendants deny that any of Plaintiffs’ claims should survive pretrial dismissal. 

50. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in the Second Amended Complaint not 

specifically admitted herein. 

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES10

FOR A FIRST DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by application of the doctrine of payment. Plaintiffs, and any 

other persons Plaintiffs seek to include in any class or collective action, have been paid all wages 

due. 

10 By pleading any matter as a defense, Defendants do not concede that they bear the burden of 

proof with regard to such matter.
17 

FOR A SECOND DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs and other employees of the Defendants who have been employed during the 

relevant time period have been properly paid for all compensation owed under the FLSA and the 

IMWL. 

FOR A THIRD DEFENSE 

To the extent that Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims allege that Defendants did not properly calculate 

overtime premiums using the weighted average of different non-overtime rates pursuant to 29 

C.F.R. § 778.115, some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims, and such claims of others Plaintiffs purport to 

represent, are foreclosed by the exceptions set forth §§ 778.400 and 778.415 through 778.421. 

FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims based on alleged willful statutory violations are barred to the extent 

Plaintiffs cannot establish that any acts or omissions of Defendants were willful. 

FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE 

To the extent that the time for which Plaintiffs, or any other person on whose behalf 

Plaintiffs seek to assert a claim, alleges that they have not been compensated involves only 

insubstantial or insignificant periods of time, these periods of time are “de minimis” as a matter of 

law, and are not compensable. 

FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims, and those claims of any other person on whose behalf Plaintiffs seek to 

assert a claim, are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of laches, unclean hands, waiver 

and/or estoppel. By way of illustration and not limitation, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent 

that Plaintiffs, or any other person on whose behalf Plaintiffs seek to assert a claim, submitted false 

and inaccurate time records, failed to report time they claim to have worked, or failed to report 
18 

time they claim should have been paid at a higher rate. In such situations, Plaintiffs’ claims are 

barred in whole or in part by the by application of the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean 

hands.

FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE 

To the extent Plaintiffs seek to include in any class or collective individuals who are exempt 

from the overtime and minimum wage requirements of the FLSA and IMWL, such claims are 

barred. 

FOR AN EIGHTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs cannot maintain this action as a class or collective action because the Second 

Amended Complaint defines individuals similarly situated and the proposed class by reference to 

the merits of the claims.

FOR A NINTH DEFENSE 

Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims for allegedly unpaid overtime pay under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act have been satisfied by amounts creditable under 29 U.S.C. § 207(h)(2). 

FOR A TENTH DEFENSE 

Defendants are entitled to a setoff or credit for any overpayments made to Plaintiffs. 

FOR AN ELEVENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, and the FLSA claims of any other person on whose behalf 

Plaintiffs seek to assert a claim, are barred to the extent that Defendants’ actions have been taken 

in good faith, in conformity with and reliance upon established rulings, administrative regulations, 

and interpretations of the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 259. 
19 

FOR A TWELFTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs and other individual Plaintiffs seek to represent are not entitled to recover 

liquidated damages under the FLSA and the IMWL because all decisions regarding Plaintiffs’ 

compensation were made in good faith, based upon reasonable grounds, and with the intent to 

comply with the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 260 and the IMWL. 

FOR A THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 

The Responsibility Bonus paid to Plaintiffs is excludable from the regular rate as a gift 

under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(1). 

FOR A FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 

The Responsibility Bonus paid to Plaintiffs is excludable from the regular rate because it 

is a discretionary bonus under 29 U.S.C § 207(e)(3). 

FOR A FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 

The Responsibility Bonus paid to Plaintiffs is excludable from the regular rate to the extent 

it constitutes payments made for periods in which no work was performed under 29 U.S.C. § 

207(e)(2). 

FOR A SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 

Defendants are entitled to credits or setoffs against any wages due as provided under the 

FLSA. 

FOR A SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE 

To the extent Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, and the claims of other persons Plaintiffs seek to 

represent, are premised on allegations that overtime pay was not properly calculated because 

Plaintiffs were not paid the “promised” regular hourly rate, the claims fail because the proper 
20 

regular rate for calculating the overtime premium is the hourly rate actually paid and the FLSA 

contains no provision requiring payment of promised wages. 

Because Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is phrased in conclusory terms, 

Defendants cannot fully anticipate all defenses which may be applicable to this action. 

Accordingly, the right to assert additional defenses, to the extent such defenses are applicable, is 

hereby reserved. 

CONCLUSION 

Wherefore, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs and the other persons whom Plaintiffs seek to 

represent are entitled to any relief whatsoever under the allegations set forth in the Second 

Amended Complaint. Defendants request that the Court dismiss the claims with prejudice in their 

entirety, enter judgment against Plaintiffs and all others Plaintiffs seek to represent, and award 

Defendants costs, attorneys’ fees, non-taxable expenses, taxable costs, interests on those amounts 

as provided by law and such further relief that this Court may deem appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of April, 2021. 

/s/Jeffrey L. Rudd 

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 

Jeffrey L. Rudd 

150 North Michigan Avenue 

Suite 2500 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Telephone: (312) 803-2547 

Facsimile: (312) 787-4995 

Email: Jeffrey.Rudd@jacksonlewis.com 

 
21 

D. Christopher Lauderdale (SC Fed. Bar No. 9051) 

Thomas Chase Samples (SC Fed. Bar No. 10824) 

15 South Main Street, Suite 700 

Greenville, South Carolina 29601 

Telephone: 864-232-7000 

Facsimile: 864-235-1381 

Email: lauderdc@jacksonlewis.com 

chase.samples@jacksonlewis.com 

 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

 
22 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DOUGLAS CANAS and VENESSA 

MESCHINO, on behalf of themselves and all 

other plaintiffs similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS 

CORP., SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS 

CORP., and KANSAS CITY SAUSAGE 

COMPANY, LLC 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-04937 

Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that on April 1, 2021, the foregoing Defendants’ Answer to 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint was electronically filed with 

the Clerk of the Court, using the Court’s CM/ECF electronic service system, which will send 

notification of such filing as follows: 

David J. Fish, Esq. 

John Kunze, Esq. 

THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C. 

200 E. 5th Avenue 

Suite 123 

Naperville, IL 60563 

Phone: 630-322-7590

/s/ Jeffrey L. Rudd 

Jeffrey L. Rudd 

150 North Michigan Avenue 

Suite 2500 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Telephone: (312) 803-2547 
23 

Facsimile: (312) 787-4995 

Email: Jeffrey.Rudd@jacksonlewis.com 

 

 

4840-7440-6627, v. 1