In Deschepper v. Midwest Wine and Spirits,2015 WL 1433230, the Northern District considered the necessary pleading allegations for claims based on the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (“IWPCA”), common law fraud and successor liability in an employment dispute involving former salespersons of a liquor wholesaler. The employer (and their principals) defendants moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6). The court granted in part and denied in part the motion.
The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act Claim
Upholding the IWPCA claim, the Court held that to state a claim under the IWPCA, a plaintiff “must plead that wages or final compensation is due to him or her as an employee from an employer under an employment contract or agreement.” 820 ILCS § 115/5. An employment contract or agreement under the IWPCA doesn’t have to be formal or even written. Instead, employers and employees can manifest their assent to employment terms by conduct alone.
Here, while there wasn’t a formal written employment contract, the Court still sustained the IWPCA count since the plaintiffs alleged that they had a hybrid salary-plus-commissions arrangement. This was enough to survive dismissal of the IWPCA claim.
A plaintiff suing under a Federal statute (like the Fair Labor Standards Act here) can sue on a successor liability theory where (1) the successor had notice of the plaintiff’s claim prior to the acquisition; and (2) there was substantial continuity in the operation of the business before and after the sale/acquisition.
The plaintiffs stated sufficient factual allegations to support a successor liability claim against a corporate entity plaintiff said was formed for the purpose of continuing the employer defendant’s business while avoiding that first employer’s Federal overtime payments to employees obligations.
Plaintiffs fraud claims failed because they pled the facts “on information and belief.” Alleging fraud on information and belief is insufficient to state a fraud claim unless (1) the facts constituting the fraud are not accessible to the plaintiff and (2) the plaintiff provides the grounds for his suspicions.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ shotgun pleading, and generalized assertions of fraud weren’t specific enough to place the court and the defendants on notice of the alleged factual basis for the claimed fraud. As a result, the Complaint didn’t satisfy FRCP 9(b)’s particularity requirement for alleging fraud.
The fraud claim was also deficient since plaintiffs didn’t allege that the underlying fraud facts weren’t accessible to them and also failed to plead the factual bases for their suspicions that defendants were setting up various business entities to evade paying overtime to the plaintiffs.
– An actionable IWPCA claim doesn’t require a formal written agreement. All that’s required is the employer and employee manifest assent to payment terms through their conduct;
– Fraud pleading must rise above notice pleading under FRCP 9(b). Absent specific factual assertions to support the fraud, the claim will likely be dismissed;
– Successor liability applies where defendant forms an entity that is arguably set up to avoid predecessor corporate obligations.