Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE STATUS—N.D. Ill.: Volunteer baseball coach’s claim he was a university employee survives dismissal, (Jun 20, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

The coach’s tort claims, however, were preempted by the Illinois Workers Compensation Act.

A volunteer baseball coach’s claims under the Illinois Fair Labor Standard Act (IMWL) and the FLSA survived a university’s motion to dismiss. The coach’s claim alleging violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), however, failed because he did not prove the existence of an employment agreement and his tort counts for negligence, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and willful and wanton conduct were preempted by the Illinois Workers Compensation Act (Santiago v. Northwestern University, No. 24-cv-2058 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 16, 2025)).

Volunteer duties. The plaintiff started working with the Northwestern University baseball team as a “volunteer coach” in October 2022 with an agreement that his responsibilities would take no more than 30 hours a week. By November, at the request of the then Northwestern head coach, he took on additional duties that were outside those expected of a volunteer and by January 2023, he was spending over 100 hours a week in his volunteer duties.

In February 2023, three Northwestern baseball coaches resigned and their duties fell to the plaintiff. Northwestern hired replacements for two of the three, but the plaintiff continued working more than 100 hours a week until the end of the baseball season in June 2023.

Bullying. In January 2023, he reported that the head coach subjected him to abusive and bullying behavior that led to extreme anxiety. Because he could “no longer endure such an abusive, toxic, and unethical work environment,” he left the program in the end of June 2023. Prior to this time, Northwestern had paid him $5,000 in both March and April 2023.

Lawsuit. Thereafter, in February 2024, he sued Northwestern, alleging that it violated the IMWL (Count I), the FLSA (Count II), and the IWPCA (Count III) and was liable for negligent hiring (Count IV), negligent supervision (Count V), negligence (Count VI), and willful and wanton conduct (Count VIII). He also sought to hold Northwestern liable under a theory of respondeat superior. Northwestern moved to dismiss the complaint.

IMWL and FLSA claims. Northwestern argued that the IMWL and FLSA claims should be dismissed because both statutes protect only the rights of employees, not those of volunteers. Applying the “economic reality” test, the court rejected his argument that it should employ the Department of Labor’s Wage & Hour Fact Sheet #71, finding that it was unclear how several factors of the Fact Sheet could be applied to his situation.

Using a “holistic approach” to decide the question, the court noted that although the plaintiff began his duties as a volunteer in October 2022, this status arguably changed when Northwestern gave him $5,000 payments in March and April 2023. Although there was no formal change in his job title, the economic reality was that Northwestern was paying him for essential work that it needed staff to perform. Taking the facts in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court held that he alleged sufficient facts to show he was an FLSA and IMWL employee by at least February of 2023.

Northwestern, however, argued that its two $5,000 payments should not be considered in the court’s analysis, pointing to a Congressional exemption for FLSA coverage that provides that an individual can be considered as a volunteer “even if he receives a fee, so long as the fee is nominal.” The court rejected this argument for two reasons. First, the DOL has stated that this exemption does not apply to volunteers for private sector employers, such as Northwestern University. Second, even if this exemption applied, the court stated that at this stage of the proceeding it was not possible to determine whether the payments were nominal. This question could be considered in later discovery. Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to survive dismissal of Counts I and II.

IWPCA claim. The IWPCA gives employees “a cause of action against employers for the timely and complete payment of earned wages.” The court noted that this provision only applies to the extent the parties’ contract or agreement requires such pay. Because the plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts demonstrating such an agreement, the court dismissed Count III.

Sate tort claims. The plaintiff brought Illinois tort claims against Northwestern for negligence, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and willful and wanton conduct. The court dismissed all of these claims, holding that they were preempted by the Illinois Workers Compensation Act.

Respondeat superior. Noting that it had dismissed the coach’s tort claims, the court held that his claim that Northwestern was liable under the doctrine of Respondeat superior also had to be dismissed.

The case is No. 24-cv-2058.

Judge: Rowland, M.

Attorneys: Christopher J. Esbrook (Esbrook) for Adrian Santiago. Reid J. Schar (Jenner & Block) for Northwestern University.

Companies: Northwestern University

Cases: EmployeeStatus CoverageLiability WageHour StateLawClaims TortClaims ContractClaims IllinoisNews