DeBlasio Law Group LLC reached a successful settlement with a South Suburban Village that illegally deducted over $2,200 from the pay of a former police officer. The Village agreed to make the payment within nine (9) days after our law firm sent a demand letter.
The firm agreed to help the police officer recover his earned pay from the Village for violating the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. (the “Wage Act”), which provides powerful remedies against employers and other persons who knowingly fail to pay wages and final compensation to employees and former employees.
In this case, the Village hired the Police Officer as a lateral transfer, but the officer resigned within two months after witnessing and reporting several events that put the safety of the officers and the general public at risk and otherwise was inconsistent with sound police practice.
When the officer received his final paycheck, the paystub reflected a “Misc. Deduction” of over $2,200.00. The Village claimed that the deduction was for a uniform and armor equipment provided to the officer, but the officer had returned his uniform and armor equipment after his resignation.
Illinois Law on Illegal Deductions from Pay
Regardless, the deduction violated Illinois law. Section 9 of the Wage Act expressly prohibits employers such as the Village from deducting any amount from an employee’s wages or final compensation unless such deductions are (1) required by law, (2) to the benefit of the employee, (3) in response to a valid wage assignment or wage deduction order, or (4) made with the express written consent of the employee, given freely at the time the deduction is made. 820 ILCS 115/9; 56 Ill. Admin. Code § 300.720. None of these exceptions applied to the deduction made by the Village.
Moreover, Illinois law expressly provides that “[a]n employer shall not deduct the cost of purchasing . . . uniforms required by the employer from an employee’s wages or final compensation, unless the employee’s express written consent is given freely at the time the deduction is made.” 56 Ill. Admin. Code § 300.840. This was never done. The same rule applies to deductions for equipment: “ An employer shall not deduct the cost of equipment required by the employer or by law from an employee’s wages or final compensation unless the employee’s express written consent is given freely at the time the deduction is made.” 56 Ill. Admin. Code § 300.850. No express written consent was ever given by the police officer, much less “freely at the time the deduction” was made.
Liability Under the Wage Act
The Wage Act provides powerful remedies against employers (including units of local government) who fail to pay wages and final compensation to employees.
Any employee not timely paid wages, [or] final compensation . . . by his or her employer as required by this Act shall be entitled to recover through a . . . civil action . . . the amount of any such underpayments and damages of 5% of the amount of any such underpayments for each month following the date of payment during which such underpayments remain unpaid. In a civil action, such employee shall also recover costs and all reasonable attorney’s fees.
820 ILCS 115/14 (emphasis supplied).
In this case, the officer could easily prove his claims under the Wage Act claim because (1) the Village was his “employer” as defined in the Wage Act, (2) the parties entered into an “employment contract or agreement” and (3) the officer earned “wages” or “final compensation” that he was not paid for because of the illegal deductions. Schultze v. ABN AMRO, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 162140, ¶ 22; Landers-Scelfo v. Corporate Office Systems, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 1060, 1068 (2nd Dist. 2005); O’Malley v. Udo, 2022 IL App (1st) 200007, ¶ 46.
In addition, the Wage Act allows current and former employees such as the police officer to recover mandatory additional statutory damages of 5 percent per month above and beyond amount owed for earned wages. 820 ILCS 115/14(a). Furthermore, the Wage Act provides for mandatory payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Thomas v. Weatherguard Constr. Co., 2018 IL App (1st) 171238, ¶¶ 68-73 (Wage Act unambiguously states that an employee “shall” recover costs and “all reasonable attorney’s fees” and affirming trial court’s award of $178,449.97 in attorney’s fees and costs on top of unpaid commissions of $9,226.52); Curet v. C&H Exterior Restorations, Inc., 2023 IL App (2d) 230030, ¶¶ 19, 36-37 (“[a]n award of fees and costs under the [Wage] Act is mandatory”) (emphasis supplied) (internal citations omitted).
The Wage Act affords broad coverage to employees, and does not require a formal employment contract. Under the Wage Act, a plaintiff need only show the existence of an “agreement,” which is more expansive than a contract and merely requires a “manifestation of mutual assent by the parties without requiring the formalities and accompanying legal protections of a contract.” Schultze v. ABN AMRO, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 162140, ¶ 23 (citingLanders-Scelfo v. Corporate Office Systems, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 1060, 1068 (2005) (holding that an “agreement” under the Wage Act can be entirely implicit) (quoting Zabinsky v. Gelber Group, Inc., 347 Ill. App. 3d 243, 249 (1st Dist. 2004)). Indeed, the Wage Act regulations broadly define the term “agreement”:
‘Agreement’ means the manifestation of mutual assent on the part of two or more persons. An agreement is broader than a contract and an exchange of promises or any exchange is not required for an agreement to be in effect. An agreement may be reached by the parties without the formalities and accompanying legal protections of a contract and may be manifested by words or by any other conduct, such as past practice[.]
56 Ill. Adm. Code 300.450.
Earning a living is challenging enough. Having your employer illegally deduct money from your pay is even worse. It should not happen. The Wage Act affords workers protections when this happens.
Attorney Antonio DeBlasio has been selected by Super Lawyers® in 2008 and in each year from 2014 through 2026. No more than 5% of Illinois attorneys receive this distinction. Mr. DeBlasio has over 31 years of experience as an Illinois attorney, representing businesses, individuals, employees, employers, estates and beneficiaries of estates in Illinois.