Alan McCaffery et al v. DIRECTV Inc et al

Filing 108

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 4/13/16 denying 99 , 100 Motions for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ALAN McCAFFERY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 14-C-0877

DIRECTV, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
In the present case, a number of current and former satellite installation
technicians bring claims against DIRECTV, LLC and DirectSat USA, LLC, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage-and-hour laws. On July 27, 2015, I issued an
order on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ consolidated class action
complaint. I granted the motion in part, but allowed most of the plaintiffs’ claims to
proceed. One claim that I allowed to proceed was plaintiff Kyle Williams’s claim under
the Illinois Employee Classification Act (“IECA”). The IECA makes it unlawful for an
entity engaged in “construction” to fail to classify an individual as an employee if that
person is in fact an employee rather than something else, such as an independent
contractor. 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 185/5, 185/20. In moving to dismiss this claim, the
defendants argued that they were not engaged in “construction,” and that therefore the
IECA did not apply to them. However, I found that the allegations of the complaint gave
rise to a reasonable inference that the defendants engaged in “construction” as defined
by the IECA. I noted that the IECA defines construction in very broad terms, and that
the definition included “adding to . . . any building or structure,” id. § 5, which could

encompass installing satellite dishes on buildings. Thus, I concluded that the complaint
stated a claim for violation of the IECA.
After I issued this decision, the Northern District of Illinois issued an order on a
motion to dismiss filed by DIRECTV and DirectSat in a similar case pending in that
court. See Anaya v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 14-cv-5703, 2015 WL 5896171 (N.D. Ill. Sept.
23, 2015). In that order, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the IECA. Id. at
*4–5. The defendants now ask me to reconsider my refusal to dismiss Kyle Williams’s
claim under the IECA in light of the Northern District of Illinois’s decision in Anaya.
However, I will not do so. That case does not contain any reasoning that suggests that
my analysis of Williams’s claim was incorrect. Rather, Anaya merely states that the
defendants in that case “are not alleged to be contractors engaged in construction.” Id.
at *5.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motions for reconsideration
(ECF Nos. 99 & 100) are DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 13th day of April, 2016.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2