Title
Finding that ST. PAWS LLC violated Legislative Code, Chapters 224 and 233, and imposing restitution in the amount of $40,201.23.
Body
WHEREAS, ST. PAWS LLC, an inactive Minnesota limited liability company (the “Respondent”), previously ran a dog daycare and boarding facility located at 1920 University Avenue West (the “Business”) in the City of Saint Paul (the “City”) and was the subject of a Determination of Violation (the “Original Determination”) and a Notice of Violation and Imposition of Proposed Restitution (the “Original Notice”), sent to Respondent on June 1, 2026, and an Amended Determination of Violation (the “Determination”) and a Notice of Violation and Imposition of Proposed Restitution (the “Notice”), sent to Respondent on July 2, 2026, and the Determination and the Notice are both attached hereto and herein incorporated; and
WHEREAS, the basis for the Determination was that on July 25, 2024, the Department of Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity (“HREEO”) received a complaint (the “ESST Complaint”) from an employee of the Respondent (the “Complainant”) alleging that the Respondent had violated Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 233, the City’s Earned Sick and Safe Time (“ESST”) Ordinance (the “ESST Ordinance”), by not allowing Complainant to accrue or use ESST hours as required by the ESST Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024, Complainant filed another complaint (the “MW Complaint” and, together with the ESST Complaint, the “Complaint”) with HREEO alleging that Respondent had violated Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 224, the City’s Minimum Wage Ordinance (the “MW Ordinance” and, together with the ESST Ordinance, the “Ordinances”) by failing to pay the Complainant the required minimum wage under the MW Ordinance;
WHEREAS, as detailed in the Determination, HREEO thoroughly investigated the Complaint and found that Respondent violated:
(a) Section 233.03 of the ESST Ordinance because Respondent did not allow employees to accrue ESST hours;
(b) Section 233.04 of the ESST Ordinance because Respondent did not allow employees to use ESST hours;
(c) Section 233.07 of the ESST Ordinance because Respondent did not provide employees with notice of their rights under the ESST Ordinance;
(d) Section 224.03 of the MW Ordinance because Respondent paid covered employees between $1.00 and $00.50 under the required hourly minimum wage; and
(b) Section 224.08 of the MW Ordinance because Respondent failed to give employees annual notice of the required minimum wage under the MW Ordinance and their right to report violations of the MW Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, when it has been determined that an employer has violated the Ordinances, the Ordinances state that covered employees may be entitled to backpay and liquidated damages; and
WHEREAS, the ESST Ordinance defines liquidated damages as the greater of the amount of wages withheld from that employee multiplied by two (2) or $250 and the MW Ordinance defines liquidated damages as the greater of the amount of wages withheld from that employee or $250; and
WHEREAS, penalties for violations of the Ordinances are recommended by the Director of HREEO and imposed by the City Council of the City (the “City Council”);
WHEREAS, HREEO’s investigation determined that Respondent had approximately seventy-one (71) employees working at the Business during the ESST investigatory period and fifty-eight (58) of those employees were covered employees under the ESST Ordinance and did not accrue, use or have proper notice of ESST hours; and
WHEREAS, HREEO’s investigation determined that eight (8) employees had been paid below the required hourly minimum wage in violation of the MW Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the investigation found that the total ESST hours owed to the 58 employees for the ESST investigative period is 852 hours and the 58 employees are entitled to a total of $11,174.87 in back pay (See attachment A to the Determination); and
WHEREAS, the investigation found that the total hours of below-minimum-wage-paid work for the 8 employees is 938.66 hours and the 8 employees are entitled to a total of $902.36 in back pay; and
WHEREAS, the Director recommends that the City Council order the Respondent to pay liquidated damages for both Ordinances to impacted employees because Respondent has not shown that their violations of the Ordinances were reasonable or done in good faith; and
WHEREAS, the Director recommends that the City Council order the Respondent to pay $26,124.00 in liquidated damages to 58 employees for violations of the ESST Ordinance and $2000 in liquidated damages to 8 employees for the violations of the MW Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the total recommended restitution amount to be paid by the Respondent to the employees is $40,201.23; and
WHEREAS, the Notice gave the Respondent until July 24, 2026, to select from the following options: (1) do nothing and a resolution would be submitted to the City Council to impose the total restitution amount of $40,201.23; (2) pay the total restitution amount of $40,201.23; or (3) request a hearing before an administrative law judge to dispute the facts and/or contest the recommended restitution; and
WHEREAS, the Respondent did not respond to the Notice; and
WHEREAS, the Director of HREEO asks that the City Council adopt HREEO’s findings and find that the Respondent violated the Ordinances and impose upon the Respondent a total restitution amount of $40,201.23, made up of $12,077.23 in backpay and $28,124.00 in liquidated damages, to be paid to sixty-one (61) employees; and, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, the City Council finds that the Respondent violated Sections 233.03, 233.04 and 233.07 of the ESST Ordinance, and Sections 224.03 and 224.08 of the MW Ordinance and imposes a total restitution amount of $40,201.23 upon the Respondent, made up of $12,077.23 in backpay and $28,124.00 in liquidated damages, to be paid to sixty-one (61) employees.