P. 1
Complaint -- Errol Service 3-12-14 Final

Complaint -- Errol Service 3-12-14 Final

|Views: 223|Likes:
Published by Lydia DePillis
McDonalds ULP
McDonalds ULP

More info:

Published by: Lydia DePillis on Jul 11, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/27/2014

pdf

text

original

202. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the preceding paragraphs by reference

as if fully set forth herein.

203. By scheduling Plaintiffs and similarly situated Crew Members to work,

ECS McDonald’s and McDonald’s Corporate offered to pay those workers at least

their nominal rate of pay for all hours scheduled.

204. By reporting to work as scheduled, Plaintiffs and similarly situated Crew

Members accepted Defendants’ offers.

205. Based on the schedules offered, Plaintiffs and similarly situated Crew

Members had a legitimate expectation that they would be permitted to work as

scheduled.

206. Defendants’ offers and Plaintiffs’ and similarly situated Crew Members’

acceptances together formed a contract.

51

207. Defendants breached that contract by refusing to pay Plaintiffs and

similarly situated Crew Members for all hours they had been scheduled to work.

208. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and similarly situated Crew Members

for actual and consequential damages on account of their breach of contract.

Sixth Cause of Action: Unjust Enrichment (Quantum Meruit) Under
Michigan Common Law

209. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the preceding paragraphs by reference

as if fully set forth herein.

210. By scheduling Plaintiffs and similarly situated Crew Members to work,

but paying those workers to work only when the labor cost percentage did not

exceed the target, McDonald’s Corporate and ECS McDonald’s obtained a

substantial benefit—namely, a just-in-time supply of labor. Because McDonald’s

Corporate and ECS McDonald’s failed to pay for that benefit, they were unjustly

enriched, to the detriment of Plaintiffs and similarly situated Crew Members.

211. McDonald’s Corporate and ECS McDonald’s appreciated and knew of the

benefits being conferred upon them by Plaintiffs and similarly situated Crew

Members who were engaged to wait.

212. McDonald’s Corporate and ECS McDonald’s conduct was willful and not

the result of mistake or inadvertence. In consequence, it would be inequitable for

McDonald’s Corporate or ECS McDonald’s to retain the benefits they received

without paying for the value of those benefits.

213. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and similarly situated Crew Members in

quantum meruit, together with an award of interests and costs.

52

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->