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.

Tita Camilotes, et al., Individually, and On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Resurrection Health Care Corporation

July 16, 2012

TITA CAMILOTES, ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
RESURRECTION HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Amy J. St. Eve, District Court Judge:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. Plaintiffs, non-exempt staff nurses employed by Defendant hospitals, allege that Defendants failed to compensate them for all hours worked. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that although Defendants regularly required Plaintiffs to work through all or part of their meal breaks, Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to automatic deductions for their scheduled meal breaks. In addition to their FLSA claims, Plaintiffs also seek to recover unpaid wages under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq., the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq., and common law unjust enrichment. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, in which they seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' IWPCA and unjust enrichment claims. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motion.

BACKGROUND

I. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1

Local Rule 56.1 assists the Court by "organizing the evidence, identifying undisputed facts, and demonstrating precisely how each side propose[s] to prove a disputed fact with admissible evidence." Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir. 2000). "The Rule is designed, in part, to aid the district court, 'which does not have the advantage of the parties' familiarity with the record and often cannot afford to spend the time combing the record to locate the relevant information,' in determining whether a trial is necessary." Delapaz v. Richardson, 634 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to provide "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue." Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009). "The opposing party is required to file 'a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." Id. (citing N.D. Ill. R. 56.1(b)(3)(B)). Pursuant to the Local Rules, the Court will not consider any additional facts proposed in the nonmoving party's Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) Response, but must rely on the non-movant's Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement of Additional Facts. See Ciomber v. Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643 (7th Cir. 2008).

The purpose of Local Rule 56.1 statements is to identify the relevant admissible evidence supporting the material facts, not to make factual or legal arguments. See Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 2006) ("statement of material facts did [] not comply with Rule 56.1 as it failed to adequately cite the record and was filled with irrelevant information, legal arguments, and conjecture"). Moreover, the requirements for responses under Local Rule 56.1 are "not satisfied by evasive denials that do not fairly meet the substance of the material facts asserted." Bordelon, 233 F.3d at 528. The Court may also disregard statements and responses that do not properly cite to the record. See Cady, 467 F.3d at 1060; Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., L.L.C., 401 F.3d 803, 809-10 (7th Cir. 2005). With these standards in mind, the Court turns to the relevant facts of this case.

II. Relevant Facts

Defendants, St. Joseph Hospital, Saints Mary and Elizabeth Medical Center, Our Lady of the Resurrection Medical Center, Resurrection Medical Center, Holy Family Medical Center, and Saint Francis Hospital (collectively, "Defendants"), are hospitals located in the Chicago area that are all affiliated with Resurrection Health Care Corporation. (R. 182, Defs.' Local Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ("Defs.' Stmt. Facts") ¶ 3.) Named Plaintiffs Tita Camilotes, Ronda Brady, Fabienne Fify, Chiara Del Giudice, Ethel Barbee, Rachelle Vardon, Donald Moarn, and Candace Dobrino are or were employed as hourly-paid nurses at one of the Defendant hospitals. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Named Plaintiffs, along with most other hourly-paid nurses at the Defendant hospitals, use a personal security badge to swipe in at a time clock at the start of their shift and to swipe out at a time clock at the end of their shift. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant hospitals use a common system of timekeeping hardware and software, in which hourly-paid nurses record their work time.

(R. 211, Pls.' Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. Add'tl Facts ("Pls.' Stmt. Add'tl Facts") ¶¶ 1-2; R. 224, Defs.' Resp. to Pls.' Stmt Add'tl Facts ¶¶ 1-2.) Resurrection Health Care Corporation compiles nurses' work time data at each Defendant hospital and processes payroll through the use of a payroll software application. (Pls.' Stmt. Add'tl Facts ¶ 3; R. 224, Defs.' Resp. to Pls.' Stmt. Add'tl Facts ¶ 3.)

Defendants' human resources policy regarding "Pay Practices/Time Records" provides that "[h]ours worked means all hours actually worked, whether authorized or not . . . ." (Pls.' Stmt. Add'tl Facts ¶ 5.) It also states that "hours worked" includes "time worked by a non-exempt employee through a designated meal period . . . ." (Pls.' Stmt. Add'tl Facts ¶ 6; R. 224, Defs.' Resp. to Pls.' Stmt. Add'tl Facts ¶ 6.) Defendants' meal period policy provides that:

Non-exempt employees who are scheduled for a shift of seven and one-half hours or longer will receive a thirty-minute unpaid meal period no later than five hours after they begin work. Departments will schedule meal periods to accommodate work needs.

If a non-exempt employee works during his or her meal period, the 30 minutes will be paid. Manager approval is required for an employee to work through his/her scheduled meal period. Such approval must be noted on the employee's time document (see Pay Practices/Time Records Policy). (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts¶ 6; R. 210, Pls.' Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) Resp. to Defs' Stmt. Facts ("Pls.' Resp. Stmt. Facts") ¶ 6; Pls.' Addt'l Stmt. Facts ¶ 10.) It further states:

If the employee takes a 1/2 hour scheduled meal period, 1/2 hour [must be/is*fn1 ] deducted from the Total Working Hours for that day. If the employee works through the meal period, the employee must be paid for that time. (Pls.' Addt'l Stmt. Facts ΒΆ 12; Defs' Resp. to Addt'l ...


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.