Iowa restaurant chain paid its servers only tips, U.S. Department of Labor claims
The Mexico Lindo Grill & Cantina at 1857 Lower Muscatine Road in Iowa City is one of three Iowa restaurants accused of wage-and-hour violations by the U.S. Department of Labor. (Photo via Google Earth)
A chain of Iowa-based Mexican restaurants is being sued by the federal government for allegedly paying some of its workers only the tips collected from customers.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, the U.S. Department of Labor is alleging that Rocio Correa-Mata, 33, of Iowa City, as the sole owner and primary manager of the Mexico Lindo Grill & Cantina restaurant chain, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Mexico Lindo Grill & Cantina has locations in West Branch, Iowa City, and North Liberty.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The department alleges that certain servers at the restaurants were 'only paid via direct cash and credit tips from customers' and did not receive the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour.
The chain also is alleged to have 'willfully and repeatedly' paid employees less than the statutory overtime rate of 1.5 times the workers' regular wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
In addition, the department claims Mexico Lindo paid its 'back-of-the-house employees' – a term typically used to describe kitchen workers — a cash salary that was insufficient to compensate them for any overtime hours.
According to the lawsuit, Mexico Lindo then failed to create and preserve accurate records of employees' hours and failed to document each worker's full name and Social Security number.
The department alleges defendant Correa-Mata has actively managed and supervised Mexico Lindo's operations and employees from June 2015 through the present, overseeing the chain's daily operations, hiring and firing employees, establishing work schedules, and setting rates of pay at each location.
The Department of Labor is seeking a court order enjoining Correa-Mata and the chain from 'continuing to withhold employees' unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation,' as well as an order finding them liable for any unpaid wages, plus an equal amount in liquidated damages, payable to 25 different employees of the three Mexico Lindo locations.
The Iowa Capital Dispatch was unable to reach Correa-Mata at home or at any of the Mexico Lindo restaurants.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
An immigrant in Wisconsin has been released on bond after false accusation he threatened Trump
MADISON, Wis. — A man who was falsely accused of threatening to assassinate President Donald Trump and threatened with deportation to Mexico was released Thursday from a Wisconsin jail on bond, three weeks after federal immigration agents arrested him. Ramón Morales Reyes, 54, was accused of a writing a letter threatening Trump in a social media post by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that got widespread national coverage. The post includes Morales Reyes' photo and an excerpt from the letter he purportedly wrote in English. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Reyes, who doesn't speak English well or write in the language, was framed. Morales Reyes was a victim in a violent 2023 attack where his bike was stolen. According to authorities, the alleged attacker, Demetric D. Scott, forged the letter to try to clear his case. Morales Reyes was set to be a witness in Scott's July trial for armed robbery and aggravated battery. Morales Reyes was released in the afternoon after paying the $7,500 bond that an immigration judge set on Tuesday. Speaking to WISN-TV, Morales Reyes said he and his lawyer will fight his deportation. 'I believe (the lawyer) knows the history and all of you know what happened,' he said. He was later met by relatives and members of the Milwaukee-based immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, which has helped work on his case. Christine Neumann-Ortiz, the organization's executive director, said Morales Reyes was 'relieved' and 'very grateful for all of the support he's received.' Judge Carla Espinoza said at the immigration court hearing in Chicago that Morales Reyes was not a threat to the community. Morales Reyes, a married father of three U.S. citizen children, works as a dishwasher in Milwaukee. He was arrested by immigration agents last month after dropping a child off at school. He immigrated from Mexico in the 1980s and doesn't have legal permission to be in the U.S. This year, he applied for a U visa, which is for people in the country illegally who are victims of serious crimes. Getting such a visa can take years. Homeland Security issued a statement to reporters last week saying that although Morales Reyes was no longer considered a threat to Trump, federal attorneys would still pursue an immigration case. The government alleges that Morales Reyes reentered the U.S. numerous times without a visa. Morales Reyes had been held in the Dodge Detention Center in Juneau, about 70 miles (113 kilometers) north of Milwaukee. He was released after the federal government did not appeal the setting of his bond. Noem's social media post blaming Morales Reyes for an assassination attempt, which was circulated by Trump supporters, remains online.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
My mother-in-law thought the world's richest man needed Apple gift cards. How on Earth could she fall for this scam?
We just found out that my 75-year-old mother-in-law is a victim of an online scammer. Her cognition is clearly impaired. She has several health problems. We are getting power of attorney and access to her bank accounts. She is definitely lonely. That, I believe, is the root cause. But that's not an excuse to believe that the world's richest man needs you to send him Apple AAPL gift cards. Her siblings are all shocked that she would believe this. How could this happen? Her only income is Social Security and a small pension. Her only asset is her home. It's paid off. My husband had a brief meeting with a lawyer who offered to transfer the deed to my husband to avoid the five-year look-back rule etc. (His mother agreed to it.) My mother-in-law currently gets a large senior tax break on her property taxes of $4,000 a year, which will go away if we transfer the deed. Should we put the house in a trust? What happens to the proceeds when sold? Israel-Iran clash delivers a fresh shock to investors. History suggests this is the move to make. 'I'm 68 and my 401(k) has dwindled to $82,000': My husband committed financial infidelity and has $50,000 in credit-card debt. What now? I'm in my 80s and have 2 kids. How do I choose between them to be my executor? Here's why stocks, bitcoin and gold are racing to record highs at the same time. It hasn't happened in over 10 years. Walmart's stock looks like it's in trouble. What the chart says may come next. Daughter-in-Law Related: I'm 57 and ready to retire next year on $7,500 a month, but my wife says no. Who's right? You have answered your first question. Loneliness and impaired cognition is a potent combination for scammers and fraudsters. Your mother-in-law wants to believe there's another person out there in the ether who takes an interest in her, and 'sees' her literally and figuratively, but her ability to process what is real and what is fake may also be impaired. The smartest people can fall victim to scams at a vulnerable moment and suspend their disbelief, as if watching a play, until it's too late. There have been cases recently where older people were scammed of six figures by thieves using AI and/or pretending to be famous people. In January, a French woman said she was conned out of €830,000 (approximately $868,000) by someone pretending to be the actor Brad Pitt. She received even more online abuse from people mocking her. She told reporters: 'I came forward because I am not the only one.' While your husband's power-of-attorney document will expire after your mother-in-law's death, estate plans often include what's called a 'durable' power of attorney. This permits the trusted individual (in this case, your husband) to retain power of attorney if and/or when your mother-in-law can no longer make decisions for herself. A conservatorship is an involuntary process and takes place when a person is unable to take care of their finances. Each state has its own rules for guardianships and conservatorships. To apply to be a conservator, your husband would need to file a petition with the probate court in the county where your mother-in-law lives and detail all the responsibilities, powers and duties he intends to take on for her. He would also need to submit a plan for her care. That does not, from what you say, appear to be required in this case. Your mother-in-law or her POA should also freeze her credit with all three major credit bureaus — Experian EXPGF, TransUnion TRU and Equifax EFX EFX — so no one can take out loans or open accounts in her name. People 60 and older are five times as likely as younger consumers to report losing money to tech-related scams, according to the Federal Trade Commission. Phone scams are the No. 1 scam affecting older people, followed by computer-related fraud. You should consult an attorney who specializes in elder law. A person's home is generally exempt as long as it is a principal residence and your equity doesn't exceed a certain amount. Other exemptions, depending on where you live, include one automobile as long as it's used to get to and from work, used to obtain medical treatment or is essential because you have a disability. Personal property used as investments — such as artwork — may not be exempt. The laws on property also vary, depending on where she lives. Several states, including Florida, New York and California, have rules that exempt a primary residence from assets calculated by Medicaid under certain circumstances. In many states, your mother-in-law or her spouse (if he were alive) would need to live in the home or have plans to return to it (if it's empty) if you wish the property to remain exempt from Medicaid. While one's primary home is generally not counted toward Medicaid's asset limit, it is not exempt from Medicaid's Estate Recovery Program, the American Council on Aging says. Your state Medicaid agency may attempt reimbursement of care costs through whatever estate of the deceased remains, and that includes the home. Furthermore, if your mother-in-law signs over her home to your husband, he will lose his step-up in-basis tax advantage. As you suggest, some people plan ahead by establishing an irrevocable trust before the five-year look-back rule. By transferring your assets into an irrevocable trust, you no longer own them and, therefore, they are exempt from Medicaid. 'They also protect assets for one's children and other relatives, which is a win-win for Medicaid applicants and their families,' says the American Council on Aging. A Medicaid Asset Protection Trust (or irrevocable income-only trust) can protect the assets of a person who wishes to apply for Medicaid, as long as this is done before the look-back period. You can include stocks and bonds, bank accounts and CDs, and secondary properties. With a MAPT, you are giving up control of these assets. Medicaid can challenge the trust, and the challenge can be complex and expensive. It will be an easier path ahead if your mother-in-law is open to help. Related: My wife asked for a divorce after 21 years. She wants to buy a house with our savings, but promises to help pay my mortgage. Previous columns by Quentin Fottrell: My husband will inherit $180K. I think we should invest the money. He wants to pay off his $168K mortgage. Who's right? 'I'm at a loss': My boyfriend of nearly 10 years is naming his elderly parents as beneficiaries and giving them power of attorney. Am I right to be upset? 'We have no prenuptial agreement': Will my wife be able to take my money if I transfer it to my retirement account? . My friend, 83, wants to add me to his bank account to pay his bills. What could go wrong? 'It might be another Apple or Microsoft': My wife invested $100K in one stock and it exploded 1,500%. Do we sell? My life partner is 18 years my senior. He wants to leave his $4.5 million fortune to me — not his two kids. Do we tell them? 'I prepaid our mom's rent for a year': My sister is a millionaire and never helps our mother. How do I cut her out of her will? 'I am getting very frustrated': My mother's adviser has not returned my calls. He manages $1 million. Is this normal?
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
What makes for a good closing argument? Jurors in the Karen Read retrial are about to find out.
'It's equal parts art and science,' Christopher Dearborn, a professor at Suffolk Law School said. 'It's about persuasion, trying to tell a better story than the other side. And some of those basic principles of persuasion are really fundamentally no different, whether it's a barroom argument, a closing argument, or a toast or speech.' Several attorneys and legal professionals who spoke to the Globe were unanimous: one of the worst things that attorneys can do in their closing arguments is appear underhanded or insincere. Advertisement 'If you do something that loses you credibility, it really can hurt you,' Dearborn said. 'On close cases, on the margins, being the side that the jury trusts or likes the most can make a difference.' Losing credibility can happen easily by failing to mention what Dearborn referred to as 'bad facts' — ignoring evidence or threads that are detrimental to your case. Karen Read defense attorney Alan Jackson. Pat Greenhouse/Globe Staff Some of those facts involve Advertisement 'In his opening statement, Hank Brennan never talked about Trooper Proctor,' Dearborn said. 'I think it'll be a mistake if he doesn't own that own that issue in his closing. Because it can look like he's trying to hide something.' Even if the facts of the case are fully and accurately addressed, attorneys still run the risk of appearing to be insincere. 'If you are not a person who raises your voice, then don't do that in the closing,' said Boston-based attorney J.W. Carney, Jr. 'Or if you are a person who's sometimes a little insecure, it's okay, you can show that. The jurors have gotten to know who you are through the trial. You don't want to change that personality.' Good lawyers balance their own personality, whether flashy or more methodological, with a measure of accessibility when speaking to jurors. 'You have to be very mindful of the jury's intelligence and be very careful not to potentially insult them or suggest that they don't have the ability to be, both individually and collectively, discerning," said attorney Brad Bailey. At the end of the day, that means delivering the argument like a regular person, clearly and articulately without being overly wordy or extravagant. Related : 'You should talk like you are at Thanksgiving dinner, talking to your grandmother,' said Jack Lu, a retired Superior Court judge and lecturer at Boston College Law School. 'Zero legalese, zero police language, and zero lawyer language.' Advertisement That's not to say there's no room for emotion, he added. 'If there is not blood on the floor, meaning rhetorically, at the end of the closing argument, you have not used raw emotion,' Lu said. Throughout the trial, attorneys from both teams have been making note of what testimony or threads of evidence resonate with jurors, Bailey said. 'You can bet there's a lot of conversation behind closed doors about what seemed to work,' he said. 'You may see direct eye contact being made with particular jurors that could have reacted to certain things.' Carney, who worked alongside Brennan while representing James 'Whitey' Bulger more than a decade ago, said the lead prosecutor in the Read case would address the jurors directly. 'Some lawyers act as if they're giving a closing argument as an orator in the Roman Coliseum,' Carney said. 'Hank talks to individuals in the jury. What he's doing is speaking to a single juror at a time. And that juror during the deliberations will remember the point that Hank gave.' Special prosecutor Hank Brennan questions an accident reconstruction expert on the witness stand during the Karen Read retrial in Norfolk Superior Court. Greg Derr/Associated Press The defense, meanwhile, will seek to convince the jury that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof in establishing Read's guilt. 'They not only have to lay out why they believe that the crimes have not been proven and why they think the jury ought to have multiple reasonable doubts, but they also anticipate upfront and try to rebut in advance what they believe the prosecution is going to say [in the rebuttal],' he said. Carney pointed to one recent case — Advertisement 'When it was done, I spoke to my two partners and said, 'Here is the website on which you can watch [Reddington's] closing argument, it's brilliant,'' he said. Dearborn said the closing arguments from Read's first trial 'were a little too long, a little bit too scattershot.' But there were a few— particularly from the defense — that he said probably resonated with the jury. 'Those are the things that sometimes jurors talk about because there's only so much attention span out there,' he said. 'So if you're not aware of that when you're talking to a jury, you can lose the jury.' Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
