Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fernando Rosales, et al v. the Placers

March 4, 2011

FERNANDO ROSALES, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE PLACERS, LTD., D/B/A RANDSTAD, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blanche M. ManningUnited States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In their single-count amended complaint, which is styled as a class action filed under the Class Action Fairness Act, the plaintiffs contend that defendant The Placers violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), 820 ILCS § 115/1, et seq., because it established a vacation policy that led to the forfeiture of earned vacation. The Placers's motion for judgment on the pleadings is before the court. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

I. Background

The essential facts are undisputed. The Placers provides temporary staffing services, and had a vacation policy through December 31, 2006, that is at issue in this case. Plaintiffs Fernando Rosales, Servando Ayvar, and Juan Herrera worked for The Placers during some of the time the challenged policy was in place. In relevant part, the vacation policy provides:

You can earn forty (40) hours of vacation when you have met the eligibility requirements.

Eligibility: You are eligible for vacation pay if you have completed 1,500 hours of service within a 52-week period. The 52 week period is defined as the 52 weeks beginning with your I-9 date and then runs anniversary to anniversary. Enrollment: Enrollment for the vacation benefit is automatic once you have met the eligibility requirements. Your vacation hours available will show on your check stub.

Key points to remember: . . . . You will be paid for all accrued but unused vacation upon termination.

Harvill Dec., Ex. A.

The plaintiffs contend that The Placers' vacation policy violated the IWPCA "by causing a forfeiture of earned vacation for employees who did not accrue 1,500 service hours within an anniversary year of employment." Amended Complaint at ¶ 24.

II. Standard for a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Under Rule 12(c), "a party can move for judgment on the pleadings after the filing of the complaint and answer." Supreme Laundry Serv., LLC v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 521 F.3d 743, 746 (7th Cir. 2008). A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted "only when it appears beyond a doubt" that the non-moving party "cannot prove any set of facts to support a claim for relief and the moving party demonstrates that there are no material issues of fact to be resolved." Id. In deciding the motion, the court must take the facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Pisciotta v. Old Nat'l Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2007).

III. Discussion

The Placers contends that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings because the plaintiffs' complaint is conclusory and its vacation policy is proper under Illinois law. Alternatively, it asserts that in any event, some of the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred. The court will summarize ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.