Court Holds that Restaurant Owner may be Personally Liable for FLSA Violations
2 min read
Nov 5, 2014
A new federal case out of Illinois demonstrates the extreme importance of complying with wage and hour laws, especially where the law provides for individual liability against those who control the terms and conditions of employment.
In the case, Reynoso v. Motel LLC, No. 1:13-cv-05004 (10/21/14), Julio Reynoso, Luis Gonzalez, and Manuel Gonzalez filed suit against their employer, Motel LLC, and its managing member/owner, Herbert Greenwald, claiming that the restaurant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay them overtime. The employees filed a motion for summary judgment, which the employer and owner opposed, arguing that while the employer itself may be liable for the alleged wage violations, the owner individually was not. The employer and owner further argued that liquidated damages should not be assessed because they acted reasonably and in good faith, and because the violations were not willful. Specifically, the defendants argued that it was restaurant's financial manager -- not the owner -- who was the person responsible for the decision not to pay the workers their overtime wages. The employees disputed this.
In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that "joint liability," in which more than one employer is liable for the same underpayment of wages, is contemplated by the FLSA. Here, the court concluded, the owner had final authority over the terms and conditions of workers' employment, including the amount and form of their wages. The facts demonstrated that the owner regularly worked at the restaurant, oversaw all day-to-day operations, and hired and supervised the restaurant's financial manager who was in charge of payroll. These "economic realities," the court found, established that the owner was in fact an "employer" under the FLSA and that he therefore could be held personally liable to the employees on their wage claims. The court accordingly granted the employees' motion as to the owner's liability and as to liquidated damages, but denied the motion with respect to the employer's/owner's alleged willfulness.
In this case, the court found that the owner could conceivably be an "employer" under the definitions of the FLSA based upon his routine involvement with the business and its operations. Similar state statutes may provide for the same type of liability. Employers should review and, if necessary, revisit their wage and hour policies to ensure compliance with the pertinent federal and state laws.
Topics
Featured Insights

Press Release
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology
