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.

Perez v. Super Maid, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

July 14, 2014

THOMAS E. PEREZ,[1] Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff,
v.
SUPER MAID, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, d/b/a SUPERMAID, and PAUL KRAWCZYK, an individual, Defendant

Page 1066

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1067

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1068

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1069

For Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff: Stacey L. Scanlon, Linda Joy Ringstad, United States Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Chicago, IL.

For Thomas E. Perez, Plaintiff: Stacey L. Scanlon, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Chicago, IL.

For Super Maid, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, doing business as Supermaid, PAUL KRAWCZYK, an individual, Defendants: Paul J. Augustyn, LEAD ATTORNEY, Paul J. Augustyn, Attorney at Law, Des Plaines, IL.

Page 1070

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John J. Tharp, Jr., United States District Judge.

The Secretary of Labor (the " Secretary" ) filed this suit against Super Maid, LLC (" Supermaid" [2]) and its president and owner, Paul Krawczyk. The Secretary alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (" FLSA" ) minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping provisions. The Secretary seeks unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and an injunction preventing the defendants from further violating the FLSA. The Court now considers the Secretary's motion for summary judgment.

Page 1071

I. Background

A. Undisputed Material Facts

The following facts are taken exclusively from the Secretary's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement (Dkt. 64, referred to herein as Pl.'s 56.1). The defendants did not file a response to the Secretary's 56.1(a) statement, nor any statement of additional material facts pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C). As a consequence of their failure to respond to the statement of material facts, the facts in the Secretary's statement are deemed admitted. See Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) (" All material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing part." ). The Court still construes those facts in the light most favorable to the defendants and draws all reasonable inferences in their favor. See Keeton v. MorningStar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 2012).

Supermaid is an Illinois limited liability company that provides cleaning services to households and businesses in Chicago, the Chicago suburbs, and Northwest Indiana. Krawczyk, the sole owner and president of Supermaid, manages the company's day-to-day operations. He controls pay and employment practices, including hiring workers, assigning work, setting wages, and handling payroll and timesheets. Supermaid's annual dollar volume of sales exceeded $500,000 each year from 2009 to 2012.

Applicants for jobs with Supermaid are required to sign three forms, entitled: " Employee Application for Supermaid, LLC," " Employee Non-Compete Agreement for Supermaid, LLC," and " Employee Responsibilities & Agreement." The Non-Compete Agreement states:

For good consideration and as an inducement for Supermaid, LLC the undersigned Employee hereby agrees not to directly or indirectly compete with the business of the Incorporation and its successors assigns during the period of employment and for a period of 3 years following termination of employment and notwithstanding the clause or reason for termination. . . .
The term " not compete' as used herein shall mean that the Employee shall not accept employment or be employed (either legally or on a cash basis) by any current or former customer of the Incorporation. . . .

Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 13 (emphasis in original). Krawczyk testified that the Non-Compete Agreement means that maids may not work for another maid service and that he told maids that they were not supposed to work for another maid service. In training, maids are told that if they are caught with their own clients, Krawczyk would keep their last check or sue them. On at least one occasion, Krawczyk confronted a maid who, he suspected, was taking Supermaid's customers and threatened to take her to court. Supermaid's maids believe that they are not allowed to clean houses other than those assigned to them by Supermaid.

Supermaid's maids think of themselves as employees, not independent contractors. Supermaid does not typically engage maids on a temporary or short-term basis. Applicants applying to Supermaid often seek permanent or long-term work; this matches clients' preferences to have the same maids clean their premises on a regular basis. Supermaid frequently assigns the same maids to the same customers; it stated on its website that it " understands the importance of being comfortable with who you have in your home" and " will make every effort to provide consistency in your staff." Pl.'s 56.1 Ex. D. Applicants are not required to have a bond or carry their own insurance, and Supermaid's

Page 1072

maids do not carry their own insurance. Supermaid has a bond and carries liability insurance for its ...


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.