A hearing is scheduled for next week to address attorneys fees after Madison County Circuit Judge Sarah Smith awarded a female manufacturing employee nearly $45,000 in damages for receiving less pay than her male counterpart in the workplace.
Smith awarded plaintiff Lynette Hongsermeier, of Collinsville, $2,067.26 for underpayment of wages, $32,882.28 for diminished earnings from no longer serving as shipping lead and $10,000 for emotional distress, totaling $44,949.54 in damages.
Hongsermeier was represented at the bench trial by Jay Leskera, Jordan Leskera and Justin Leskera of Leskera Law Firm in Collinsville.
“Our firm is proud to protect the rights of women in the workplace,” Jay Leskera said.
Defendant Cooper B-Line Inc. was represented by Sean Herring and Richard Mrizek of the Jackson Lewis law firm in Chicago.
Hongsermeier, who worked as a shipping lead on the 1st shift for Cooper B-Line, claimed she was paid less than the male shipping lead on the 2nd shift for performing the same duties. Smith agreed.
“Defendant is unable to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason” why the male shipping lead was paid more than the plaintiff, Smith concluded.
“The decision was made to pay Eddie Enriquez more in 2013 by a ‘member of management’ who adjusted the payroll records so that Eddie Enriquez would be paid more for performing Shipping Lead duties,” she wrote. “There was no evidence at trial which explained why this decision was made or the basis for the decision."
“In addition, there was a restructure of the pay/wage rates in 2019,” she added. “There is no evidence that Eddie Enriquez ‘flexed’ or a formal determination was made by anyone in the company to adjust his pay pursuant to the CBA. Where a defendant fails to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, judgment must be entered for the plaintiff.”
Smith also granted attorney’s fees and costs during the bench trial.
The plaintiff’s counsel filed a petition for fees and costs on Nov. 22, seeking $150,855.64 in attorney’s fees and $5,011.35 in court costs.
“The attorney’s fee time spent on this litigation was reasonable and necessary and required in order to produce the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The itemized costs were reasonable and necessary in order to prepare the case for trial,” the petition states.
Cooper B-Line filed a response to the petition for fees and costs on Dec. 22, arguing that the plaintiff is not entitled to the amount of fees and costs she seeks. It argues that the plaintiff’s counsel should be awarded no more than $34,066.24 in fees and $4,316.45 in costs.
Smith scheduled a hearing on the dispute for Jan. 25.
“Plaintiff’s counsel seeks fees for a claim that was dropped from the case, failed to proper (sic) itemize fees by inappropriately block billing, overstaffed and overbilled for certain tasks, sought attorney payment for non-attorney tasks, and sought payment for work never submitted to the court,” the response states.
Hongsermeier filed her complaint on Oct. 6, 2020, in the Madison County Circuit Court against her employer, Cooper B-Line. She alleges the defendant violated the Illinois Equal Pay Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act.
According to the complaint, Hongsermeier was employed for 24 years by Cooper B-Line, which operates a manufacturing plant in Troy. She works in the shipping department, serving as shipping lead for the 1st shift from March 10, 2019, to March 22, 2020. During that same time, Enriquez served as 2nd shift shipping lead and was paid $0.41 per hour more than Hongsermeier for performing similar duties.
Hongsermeier explains that in March 2019, the defendant restructured the shipping lead position so that only one employee would receive the title and pay per shift. The 1st and 2nd shipping lead job postings included the exact same job duties and responsibilities and each posting stated that the pay would be the same. The plaintiff was awarded the Shipping Lead position “due to her ‘skill’” and after performing well as shipping lead previously.
Hongsermeier claims she discovered that Enriquez was paid more than her in September 2019. She requested back pay and to be brought up to equal pay, and her complaint was escalated to the Human Resources Department.
Management held a meeting on Dec. 9, 2019, to discuss the unequal pay disparity issue. It was attended by Plant Manager Nic Knouse, two human resources managers, and union representatives - which included Enriquez. Hongsmermeier was kept waiting outside the meeting room and was not brought in until after the group determined that she did not deserve equal pay.
The defendants argued that Enriquez “led the dual operators” and filled in when a forklift operator did not appear for work, entitling him to higher pay.
Hongsermeier claims she did not receive notice of the meeting and was not afforded the opportunity to prepare to make her case, only being brought into the meeting when it was “almost over.”
“Plaintiff testified that she was ‘devastated’ by the way she was treated by the defendant in response to her unequal pay claim, and subsequently plaintiff did not sign the new 2020 shipping lead job bid,” Smith wrote in her order following the bench trial.
Hongsermeier added that there were four male leads in every department, and they were all being paid $1 over the highest pay rate in that department.
In her bench trial ruling, Smith found that Hongsermeier and Enriquez performed substantially similar work as shipping leads. She rejected the defendants’ argument that Enriquez’s operation of a forklift and crane entitled him to additional pay because those weren’t required skills for the job, and the plaintiff also completed additional tasks that Enriquez did not perform. Further, operation of a forklift was not included in the job responsibilities when the shipping lead position was posted again in March 2020 with the inclusion of the ‘dual operators lead.’
“The operation of the forklift was not a substantial difference in the shipping lead duties because the defendant never recognized operation of the forklift as a reason to pay the 2nd shift shipping lead a higher rate of pay after having two separate opportunities to do so in 2019 and 2020,” Smith wrote.
Smith awarded Hongsermeier actual damages as well as special damages for interference. She wrote that the defendant interfered with the plaintiff’s exercise of her rights and “humiliated” her by holding the Dec. 9, 2019, meeting without notice and without her inclusion until after they reached their decision. Smith made sure to note that no one present at the meeting spoke on the plaintiff’s behalf.
“While defendant did not have a legal obligation to notify plaintiff of the meeting and give her the opportunity to be heard, a rational assessment of the situation would lead a reasonable person to believe that denying plaintiff these opportunities interfered with her IEPA claim,” Smith wrote.
Madison County Circuit Court case number 20-L-1411