Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (29 USC § 201 et seq.) precluded plaintiff’s “wage theft” claim brought under the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 USC § 1961 et seq.); EC Term of Years Trust v. United States; Hinck v. United States; Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands; Kendall v. City of Chesapeake (4th Cir.); Michigan Corr. Org. v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr.; City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp. (4th Cir.); Roman v. Maietta Constr., Inc. (1st Cir.); Whether plaintiff could still bring claims that were “distinct from unpaid wages” under the RICO; Sedima S.R.P.L. v. Imrex Co.; Haroco, Inc. v. American Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago (7th Cir.); § 1964(c); Aces High Coal Sales, Inc. v. Community Bank & Trust of W. GA (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Norman v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (2d Cir.); Valverde v. Xclusive Staffing, Inc. (D CO); DeSilva v. N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc. (ED NY); Montize v. Pittman Props. Ltd. P’ship No. 1 (WD AR); Williamson v. General Dynamics Corp. (9th Cir.)

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court affirmed the district court’s ruling dismissing plaintiff-Torres’s wage-loss claims brought under the RICO because they were precluded by the FLSA. However, it reversed the dismissal of his claim that was distinct from his wage and hour claims, and remanded to determine whether he had stated a RICO claim. Torres, a long-time employee of Vitale’s Italian restaurant, sued defendant-Vitale and others under the RICO, alleging that for years, Vitale paid his employees their overtime pay in cash and in the same amounts as their standard pay. Torres alleged a tax evasion scheme, a wage-theft scheme, and a scheme to defraud worker’s compensation, asserting that they amounted “to RICO violations through mail and wire fraud . . . .” The court agreed with the district court that Torres could not bring his wage claims under the RICO because they were precluded by the FLSA. However, it held that even though the FLSA was the sole remedy for federal minimum wage and overtime violations, it “does not preclude suits for other damages, even when the underlying conduct in those suits also violated the FLSA.” The court then considered RICO’s “‘virtually unlimited sweep,’” and held that even though his claim for lost wages was precluded under the FLSA, and his claim as to worker’s compensation insurance fraud belonged to the insurance company, one claim still remained—that as to the existence of “a tax-evasion scheme through which he and other similarly-situated Vitale’s employees were deprived of the employer’s half of social security payments, and were then subjected to tax liabilities.” The court could not say whether this claim was precluded by the FLSA without the benefit of briefing or argument on the issue. It remanded this issue to determine whether Torres sufficiently alleged a RICO claim resulting in damages other than lost wages.