26.  Plaintiff brings the First Cause of Action, pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),  on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons who worked as AMs at Gordon Food stores  nationwide, who elect to opt-in to this action (the “FLSA Collective”).   27.  Plaintiff and AMs routinely work more than 40 hours in workweeks and are  typically scheduled to work at least 50 hours per workweek.   28.  Defendant is liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly compensate  Plaintiff and other similarly situated AMs and for misclassifying them as exempt from the FLSA’s  overtime pay requirements.     29.  Pursuant to Defendant’s policies, directives, and procedures, Plaintiff and AMs  primarily performed non-exempt job duties including customer service, cleaning, stocking  products on shelves and in refrigerators and freezers, processing deliveries, and working on the  cash register.   30.  Consistent with Defendant’s policy and pattern or practice and pursuant to a  corporate policy to minimize labor expenses and increase corporate profits, Plaintiff and the  members of the FLSA Collective were not paid an overtime premium for all hours worked above  40 hours in a workweek.     32.  All of the work that Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective have  performed has been assigned by Defendant, and/or Defendant has been aware of all of the work  that Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective have performed.   33.  As part of its regular business practice, Defendant has intentionally, willfully, and  repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to Plaintiff  and the members of FLSA Collective.  This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited  to:  (a)  willfully failing to pay Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective  overtime wages for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per  workweek; and  (b)  willfully failing to record all of the time that its employees, including  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, have worked for the benefit of  Defendant.   34.  Defendant is aware or should have been aware that federal law required it to pay  Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess  of 40 hours per workweek.      35.  Defendant’s unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.   36.  There are many similarly situated current and former AMs who have been  underpaid in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised  notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it.    37.  Similarly situated employees are known to Defendant, are readily identifiable, and  can be located through Defendant’s records.   38.  Notice should be sent to the FLSA Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  40.  Excluded from the Ohio Rule 23 Class are Defendant, Defendant’s legal  representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at  any time during the class period has had, a controlling interest in Defendant; the Judge(s) to whom  this case is assigned and any member of the Judge(s)’ immediate family; and all persons who will  submit timely and otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   41.  The members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.  Although the precise number of such persons is not known to Plaintiff  Higgins, the facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the  sole control of Defendant.   42.  Upon information and belief, the size of the Ohio Rule 23 Class is at least 40  individuals.    43.  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Ohio  Rule 23 Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory  relief with respect to the Ohio Rule 23 Class as a whole.   45.  The claims of Plaintiff Higgins are typical of the claims of the Ohio Rule 23 Class  he seeks to represent.     46.  Plaintiff Higgins and all of the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members work, or have worked,  for Defendant as AMs.     47.  Plaintiff Higgins and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members enjoy the same statutory  rights under the Ohio Wage Laws, including to be paid for all hours worked and to be paid overtime  wages.  Plaintiff Higgins and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have all sustained similar types of  damages as a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with the Ohio Wage Laws.  Plaintiff Higgins  and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have all been injured in that they have been under- compensated due to Defendant’s common policies, practices, and patterns of conduct.   49.  Plaintiff Higgins has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class  actions and employment litigation.  There is no conflict between Plaintiff Higgins and the Ohio  Rule 23 Class Members.   50.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation—particularly in the context of wage litigation like the present action,  where an individual plaintiff may lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in  federal court against a corporate defendant.  The members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class have been  damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Wage Laws,  as well as their common and uniform policies, practices, and procedures.  Although the relative  damages suffered by individual Ohio Rule 23 Class Members are not de minimis, such damages  are small compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation.  The  individual plaintiff lacks the financial resources to conduct a thorough examination of Defendant’s  timekeeping and compensation practices and to prosecute vigorously a lawsuit against Defendant  to recover such damages.  In addition, class litigation is superior because it will obviate the need  for unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments about Defendant’s  practices.   52.  Plaintiff and the members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class (“Class Members”) and the  FLSA Collective (“Collective Members”) worked for Defendant as AMs.   53.  Defendant classified Plaintiff and the Class and Collective Members as exempt  workers.     54.  Defendant’s policy and practice was that Plaintiff and Class and Collective Members  were expected to work more than 40 hours per week.   55.  Defendant was aware that Plaintiff and the Class and Collective Members worked  more than 40 hours per workweek, yet Defendant failed to pay them an overtime premium for any  of the hours worked over 40 in a workweek.    56.  Plaintiff and the Class and Collective Members primarily performed non-exempt  job duties and should have been paid overtime wages for overtime hours worked.   57.  Defendant did not keep accurate records of hours worked by Plaintiff or the Class  and Collective Members.  That is, although Plaintiff and Class and Collective Members routinely  worked more than 40 hours, Defendant did not record all of those hours worked outside of the  store.    58.  Upon information and belief, Defendant did not properly inquire into whether  Plaintiff and AMs were properly classified as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the  FLSA and Ohio Wage Laws.     60.  Plaintiff Higgins realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all  preceding paragraphs.   61.  Defendant has engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the FLSA,  as described in this Class and Collective Action Complaint.   62.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff Higgins and other similarly situated current and  former employees were engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within  the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).    63.  At all relevant times, Defendant employed Plaintiff Higgins and the FLSA  Collective.    64.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in §§ 201 et seq. of the FLSA apply to  Defendant.    65.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been an employer engaged in commerce and/or  the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   66.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff Higgins and the FLSA Collective were employees  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 207(a).   67.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff Higgins and the FLSA Collective the overtime  wages to which they are entitled under the FLSA.    69.  Because Defendant’s violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year statute  of limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.   70.  As a result of Defendant’s willful violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff Higgins and all  other similarly situated employees have suffered damages by being denied overtime wages in  accordance with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.    71.  As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff Higgins and other similarly  situated current and former employees have been deprived of overtime compensation and other  wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated  damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).   72.  Plaintiff Higgins realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all  preceding paragraphs.    73.  Defendant engaged in a widespread pattern, policy, and practice of violating the  Ohio Wage Laws, as detailed in this Class and Collective Action Complaint.    74.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff Higgins and the members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class  have been employees and Defendant has been an employer within the meaning of the Ohio Wage  Laws.   75.  Plaintiff Higgins and the members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class are covered by Ohio  Wage Laws and accompanying regulations.   76.  Defendant employed Plaintiff Higgins and the members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   78.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff Higgins and the members of the Ohio Rule 23  Class overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.   79.  Defendant failed to keep, make, preserve, maintain, and furnish accurate records of  time worked by Plaintiff Higgins and the members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.    80.  Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Wage Laws have been willful and intentional.   81.  Due to Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Wage Laws, Plaintiff Higgins and the  members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class are entitled to recover from Defendant their unpaid overtime  wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, penalties, and pre-judgment and post- judgment interest.  Fair Labor Standards Act: Overtime Wages  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff Higgins and the FLSA Collective)   Ohio Wage Laws: Unpaid Overtime Wages  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff Higgins and the Ohio Rule 23 Class)  