United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
WILLIAM C. DOUGHERTY and ANARGYROS KEREAKES, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated members of the Chicago Police Department, Plaintiffs,
CITY OF CHICAGO, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, Defendant.
CHARLES P. KOCORAS, DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant City of Chicago's
(“City”) Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”)
Count II of the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”)
brought by Plaintiffs William Dougherty, Anargyros Kereakes,
and the putative class (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the
City's Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Court accepts as true the following well-plead allegations
from Plaintiffs' TAC and attached exhibits. All possible
inferences are drawn in Plaintiffs' favor. Tamayo v.
Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).
bring this action on behalf of two putative classes, only one
of which is relevant to the instant Motion. The relevant
class is defined as all current and former Chicago Police
Department (“CPD”) members who, on or after July
1, 2007, worked any one or more of the City's
“special employment programs.” The City is an
employer within the meaning of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act (“IWPCA”), 820 ILCS 115/2.
Plaintiffs state that the named plaintiffs and putative class
members have been employees of the City at all relevant times
within the meaning of the IWPCA, as well.
City also operates under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.A. Ch. 8, which entitles
Plaintiffs to overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half
times the regular rate at which they are employed, for hours
worked in excess of 171 hours in a twenty-eight-day work
period. Plaintiffs allege that the City failed to include any
of the hours that Plaintiffs worked in special employment
programs into the total hours worked in a twenty-eight-day
work period. Consequently, the City failed to compensate
Plaintiffs for all hours worked in excess of 171 hours per
allege that this failure in compensation violated the
“wage agreements” between Plaintiffs and the
City. Of the six exhibits attached to the TAC, three are
copies of collective bargaining agreements
(“CBAs”) between the City and the parties
(Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 are excerpts from the CBAs reached
between the City and CPD Patrol Officers, Sergeants, and
Lieutenants, respectively). The Sergeants' and
Lieutenants' CBAs each contain an identical clause
entitled “Compensation for Overtime, ” that reads
in pertinent part:
For hours in excess of 171 in a twenty-eight- (28-) day
period, the overtime rate will be calculated in accordance
with the [FLSA]…. A Sergeant/Lieutenant who earns
overtime pursuant to the FLSA shall be paid overtime
compensation. A Sergeant/Lieutenant who earns non-FLSA
overtime shall have the option of electing pay or
compensatory time consistent with the provisions of this
similar provision, the Patrol Officers' CBA provides:
An Officer who earns overtime pursuant to the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) shall be paid overtime
compensation at the FLSA rate agreed upon by the parties. An
Officer who earns non-FLSA overtime shall have the option of
electing pay or compensatory time consistent with the
provisions of this Agreement.
does not explicitly define what is encompassed by
“non-FLSA overtime, ” nor does it highlight any
sections in the CBAs that might so articulate the term.
outwardly distinct from their overtime allegations,
Plaintiffs allege that the City also violated its wage
agreements with CPD Sergeants and Lieutenants when it
“failed to pay them a rank credit of three-quarters of
one-hour for each instance of working more than four hours in
any [special employment programs].” Indeed, the
Sergeants' and Lieutenants' CBAs contain duplicate
clauses entitled “Rank Credit, ” which read in
The Employer will credit each Sergeant/Lieutenant with
forty-five (45) minutes per day of compensatory time. Said
forty-five (45) minutes per day will be credited for each day
on which a Sergeant/Lieutenant works, provided the
Sergeant/Lieutenant works at least four (4) hours that day.
On October 6, 2017, the City moved to dismiss Count II of
II alleges that the City violated the IWPCA by failing to pay
Plaintiffs all compensation and wages due to them in