Quantcast

U.S. Labor Department takes Carbondale bakery to trial over worker backpay; Jurors award fraction sought

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

U.S. Labor Department takes Carbondale bakery to trial over worker backpay; Jurors award fraction sought

Federal Court
Walshmarty

Labor Secretary Walsh

BENTON – Jurors in U.S. district court who found they had to award back pay to workers at a Carbondale bakery awarded only a tenth of the amount the U.S. Labor Department asked for. 

The $4,920.02 verdict they rendered against Longbranch Bakery and Café on July 15 looked more like judgment from small claims court.

 A note they sent to District Judge Staci Yandle indicated doubts that Longbranch broke any law. 

The Labor Department investigated Longbranch in 2020, on suspicion of compelling servers to share tips with cooks and dishwashers. 

For 15 years Longbranch had divided tips at the end of each shift, at 90 percent for servers and five percent each for cooks and dishwashers. 

Some employees told investigators they regularly approved the policy and some employees said they didn’t. 

President Biden’s Labor Secretary Martin Walsh sued Longbranch and general manager Elaine Greenberg in January 2021. 

He claimed they failed to pay minimum wage and overtime and they violated record keeping requirements. 

This March, his counsel Elisabeth Nolte moved for summary judgment. 

She attached a summary showing Longbranch owed $51,305.24 to 31 persons for work they performed in two years prior to the investigation. 

Amounts varied from $23.02 to more than $5,000. 

This June, Yandle granted summary judgment that Longbranch owed $126.01 to five servers for overtime and an equal amount as liquidated damages. 

She found Longbranch violated record keeping requirements. 

She denied summary judgment on minimum wage and took it to trial. 

On July 12, Nolte and Longbranch counsel Shari Rhode of Carbondale chose eight jurors and delivered opening arguments. 

Employee Jennifer McSparin, whose claim the department valued at $5,497.19, testified for the department. 

On July 13, five witnesses on the department’s list testified for the department. 

Nolte called Greenberg to the stand and her testimony continued on July 14, lasting 88 minutes in all. 

Nolte called department investigator Lindsey Corona for 14 minutes and rested. 

Defense counsel Rhode first called Raine Fox, whose claim the department valued at $5,566.41. 

Rhode called two other witnesses from the department’s list and two employees not on the list. 

Nolte’s colleague Kevin Wilemon and Rhode delivered closing arguments on July 15, and jurors retired at 10:33 a.m. 

They had to answer four questions. 

The first two asked if Longbranch and Greenberg required servers to participate in a pool including cooks and dishwashers. 

Jurors answered yes to both. 

At 12:14 p.m., Yandle received a note. 

It read, “The instructions after questions 1 + 2 say we have to answer yes to question 3 if we have answered yes to either of the first two. Why is that?” 

Yandle sent a note back in 15 minutes. 

It read, “You must apply the law as it has been provided to you. This includes completing the verdict form as instructed.” 

They answered yes and proceeded to the fourth question, which asked if they should award $49,200.23 as back wages. 

They answered no. 

A fifth question asked if the answer was no, in what amount? 

They answered $4,920.02. 

They brought the verdict to Yandle 15 minutes after she sent the note.

On July 18, Wilemon moved to alter judgment, arguing that Yandle should award $49,200.23. He stated that Yandle indicated she would enter judgment reflecting the jury award and an equal amount in liquidated damages.

He claimed the department's amount was the only amount the jury's liability finding justified.

He claimed Longbranch didn't refute Corona's calculations and there was no other evidence the jury could have misinterpreted.

He also claimed Yandle appropriately instructed jurors on the law but they failed to follow it.

In the alternative he moved for a second trial on damages only, with no opportunity for Longbranch to defend itself on liability.

More News