Jeffrey Grant Brown

LaMarr, et al. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., et al. Case No. 15 C 8660, US District Court, Northern District of Illinois

We conditionally certified a collective action in this federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) matter against Illinois Bell Telephone Company, AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Corp., and AT&T Operations, Inc. seeking allegedly unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs’ Counsel represented approximately 1,279 individuals in the case.  The case was resolved without any admission of liability by any party pursuant to a confidential settlement.

Clements, et al. v. JPMorganChase, N.A., Case No. 18 C 00660, US District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Our client’s debit card was stolen, and a clever criminal deposited fake checks and immediately withdrew the money.  The Bank claimed our client was participating in the fraud, and froze her account.  We filed suit. This matter was set for trial in arbitration at the end of September, 2019.   The case was resolved without any admission of liability by any party pursuant to a confidential settlement.

Shanks et al. v. (Name Of Defendant Withheld Pursuant To Settlement Agreement), Case No. 11 C 7156, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Illinois

Our clients worked for a nationwide franchise of retail stores; we allege they were not paid wages or compensation for the time they were working, by leaving the store at night to make bank deposits, after their store closed. The parties have agreed to a confidential settlement of the case, which has been approved by the Court.

PSG Services, LLC v. William Blackwell, et al., Case No. 2013 CH 27766, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

We represented an employer whose employee was injured at work, and who sought workers compensation benefits, against an insurance agent whom we alleged had failed to procure workers comp. insurance coverage, alleging professional negligence (malpractice).  The case was settled on the day it was set for jury trial, without any admission of liability by any party pursuant to a confidential settlement.

Reed, et al. v. Methodist Health Services Corporation, Unitypoint Health, and Progressive Health Systems, Case No. 19 C 1412, Central District of Illinois

Plaintiffs, nurses performing case management work for three hospitals, were classified as “exempt” from overtime laws.  We challenged that classification, and sought their overtime wages for time worked beyond forty hours each work week.  The case was resolved without any admission of liability by any party pursuant to a confidential settlement.

Solsol, et al. v. Scrub, Inc., et al., Case No. 13 C 7652, US District Court, Northern District, Illinois

Our clients are janitors working at O’Hare International Airport.  Their employer has “rounded” the time they are clocked in to work, so they have been paid only for the time they are scheduled to work, not the time they actually work.  As a result, these janitors have been underpaid by millions of dollars.  Several claims, including several collective action claims, against the defendants have been resolved.

Jennings, et al. v. JRP Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02436-L, US District Court, Northern District, Texas

Our clients are Subway restaurant employees working at a Texas Subway franchise as sandwich makers.  Their employer has illegally paid them straight time for all time worked, instead of paying time-and-a-half, i.e., 1.5 times the straight time rate for time worked beyond 40 hours per week.  Settlement agreement precludes disclosure of the terms of settlement.

Oquendo, et al. v. Geralex, Inc., et al., Case No. 15 C 1634, US District Court, Northern District, Illinois

Our clients are janitors working for a small janitorial company at O’Hare International Airport and other Chicago-area locations. Their employer has “rounded” the time they are clocked in to work, and has also failed to pay for time worked off the clock. The Court has entered judgments for nine of the janitors. Following a failed settlement mediation in December, 2015, Defendants filed for bankruptcy.  Following litigation in bankruptcy, Defendants offered to settle the claims, and the parties effectuated a settlement of the janitor’s wage claims, in the bankruptcy court.

Hampton/Jacklin v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, Case No. 11 CH 25822, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

The Illinois Constitution has its Bill of Rights, similar to the U.S. Constitution.  Section 15 of Article I of the Illinois Constitution says:  “Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation as provided by law. Such compensation shall be determined by a jury as provided by law.”  Our clients’ homes, basements and property were flooded in July, 2010, when the MWRD closed the locks and dams to various rivers and waterways in the Chicago, Illinois area.  We have filed two class action lawsuits because of those deliberate acts, since flooding land in those circumstances is an unconstitutional taking of property and must be compensated, under the Illinois Constitution.  MWRD appealed from the trial court and Illinois Appellate Court’s rulings; and the Illinois Supreme Court has confirmed our legal position that if a government deliberately floods property, as has been alleged, it is a “governmental taking”, even if the taking is temporary.  The case was sent back to the trial court, and the parties are preparing for trial.

Wynn, et al. v. Express, LLC, Case No. 11-CV-4588, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Illinois

We have filed claims against Express on behalf of hourly and managerial employees who worked at Express retail stores throughout the United States, in and outside of Illinois, and who were required to work “off-the-clock”, by making  bank deposits after hours, in violation of state and federal law, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The suit sought wages or compensation for straight time and overtime work.  The Court granted collective certification of this action.  The parties have agreed to a settlement of the case, which has been approved by the Court.

Khriesat v. Yonis, et al., Case No. 11-CV-4286, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Illinois

Identity theft action arising when Plaintiff’s signature was repeatedly forged and his credit and other history used by Defendants to open credit card merchant accounts in Plaintiff’s name.  Judgment has been entered for fraud, consumer fraud and other claims against Defendants, for $1,255,035.67, including punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

(Name of Case Redacted), U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania

We filed suit against an international hotel and resort company on behalf of our client, under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act.  We claimed that the Defendant employer violated those statutes by “hacking”, e.g., illegally gaining access, to Plaintiff’s private email accounts and his computer, using remote access programming, after Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant had been terminated.  The case settled after two years of litigation, on the even of trial, for $300,000.

Smith v. ERJ Dining, LLC, et al (a/k/a Chili’s Restaurant), Case No. 11 C 2061, Northern District, Illinois

We filed claims against Chili’s on behalf of current and former hourly employees, including servers, bartenders, buspersons and greeters who were not paid the correct amount of overtime wages, and who were required to perform non-tipped work while being paid at tipped rates.  The Court denied Defendant’s motion to require arbitration in this case.

Sanchez v. Prudential Pizza, Inc., et al., Case No. 10 C 6289, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Illinois

The Court granted summary judgment on behalf of our client, pursuant to the “lie detector law”, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act – it is usually illegal to require an employee to take a lie detector test.  The Court also entered judgment against all defendants, and awarded Plaintiff her attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting the case.  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Defendants must pay Ms. Sanchez’ attorney’s fees incurred in the litigation.