23.  Given the demands of the health care industry and staffing shortages, Defendant  knows that in order to accomplish the tasks it assigns to Plaintiff and class members, Plaintiff  and class members have to work through their unpaid “meal breaks.”   24.  Under the “Meal Break Deduction Policy,” Defendant’s computerized time and  attendance system automatically deducts a 30 minute meal period per work shift.     25.  Upon information and belief, Defendant maintains the “Meal Break Deduction  Policy” at all of its facilities.  Accordingly, all non-exempt employees of Defendant are subjected  to Defendant’s “Meal Break Deduction Policy.”   26.  Under Defendant’s “Meal Break Deduction Policy,” Defendant improperly and  illegally shifts the burden to Plaintiff and class members to ensure that non-qualifying “meal  breaks” are not deducted from their pay.    27.  Plaintiff and class members often perform compensable work for Defendant  during their uncompensated “meal breaks.”   29.  In addition, Plaintiff and class members routinely are required to stay at their duty  post during their uncompensated “meal breaks.”   30.  Defendant does not prohibit Plaintiff and class members from working during  their “meal breaks” and routinely suffers or permits Plaintiff and class members to perform such  work.     31.  Further, Defendant fails to ensure that unauthorized work is not being performed  during employee “meal breaks.”   32.  In fact, although Defendant automatically deducts 30 minute meal periods,  Defendant expects Plaintiff and class members to be available to work throughout their shifts and  consistently require its employees to work during unpaid “meal breaks.”   33.  Plaintiff and class members are expected to eat without any change in demands  from patients or relief by additional staff.  Indeed, Plaintiff and class members are often required  to respond to pages, as well as requests by patients, co-workers and management, during unpaid  “meal breaks.”     34.  Defendant knows and/or has reason to believe that Plaintiff and class members  perform work during their unpaid “meal breaks.”  Indicative of this, Plaintiff and class members  perform work for Defendant, on Defendant’s premises, in plain sight, and often at management’s  request (and at times in view of management) during their unpaid “meal breaks.”     35.  Even though Defendant knows that Plaintiff and class members are working  during “meal breaks,” Defendant fails to compensate Plaintiff and class members for their work,  electing instead to accept the benefits of Plaintiff and class members’ uncompensated work.   37.  Due to Defendant’s aforementioned employment practices, including specifically  wherein it automatically deducts thirty minutes for meal breaks from Plaintiff and class  members’ wages, Plaintiff and class members often worked in excess of forty hours per week  and were denied statutory overtime wages.   38.  Evidence generally reflecting the number of uncompensated hours worked by  each class member and the compensation rates for the relevant work periods is in the possession  of Defendant.     39.  While Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact amount owed to the class,  Plaintiff believes that such information will become available during the course of discovery.   Irrespective of the foregoing, when an employer fails to keep complete and accurate time  records, employees may establish the hours worked solely by their testimony and the burden of  overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer.  See Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.,  40.  The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if the same were fully  set forth herein.   42.  The claims under the FLSA may be pursued by those who opt-in to this case  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).  The claims under the IMWL, IWPCA, and Illinois common law  may be pursued by all similarly-situated persons who do not opt-out of the IL Class pursuant to  Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.   43.  The members of each of the Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable.  While the exact number of the members of the Classes is unknown to Plaintiff  at this time, and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes there  are thousands of individuals in each defined class.     45.  Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Classes.     46.  The claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Classes  in that Plaintiff was denied overtime wages as a result of Defendant’s uniform policy of not  compensating its non-exempt employees for all hours worked.  This is the predominant issue  which pertains to the claims of each and every class member.     47.  The class action/collective action mechanism is superior to other available  methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.  The damages suffered by  individual members of the Classes may be relatively small when compared to the expense and  burden of litigation, making it virtually impossible for members of the Classes to individually  seek redress for the wrongs done to them.   48.  Furthermore, even if any member of the Classes could afford individual litigation  against Defendant, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.  The instant  methodology, when compared to voluminous individual actions, has fewer management  difficulties and provides the benefits of unitary adjudication, economies of scale, and  comprehensive supervision by a single court.  Concentrating this litigation in one forum will  promote judicial economy and parity among the claims of individual members of the Classes and  provide for judicial consistency.     50.  Counsel for Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Classes.  Such  counsel is experienced with employment/class litigation and has previously served as class  counsel in employment litigation.     51.  Plaintiff and the Classes she represents have suffered and will continue to suffer  irreparable damage from the illegal policy, practice and custom regarding Defendant’s pay  practices.     52.  Defendant has engaged in a continuing violation of the FLSA.     53.  Plaintiff, as well as the individuals she represents, was denied overtime wages as  a result of Defendant’s pay practices.  Defendant’s action in denying overtime wages to Plaintiff  was intentional and constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA.   54.  Defendant has engaged in a continuing violation of the IMWL and the IWPCA.     55.  Defendant’s action in denying wages for all hours worked was intentional and  constitutes a willful violation of the IWPCA.     56.  Defendant’s action in denying overtime wages to Plaintiff was intentional and  constitutes a willful violation of the IMWL and the IWPCA.  57.  The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein.   59.  At all relevant times, Defendant has had annual gross revenues in excess of  $500,000.00.   60.  As a consequence of Defendant’s employment practices whereby it automatically  deducts thirty minutes for meal breaks from the pay of hourly, non-exempt employees, Plaintiff  and class members were denied statutory overtime wages.   61.  Plaintiff and class members were employees of Defendant within the meaning of  the FLSA and, as such, were entitled to the benefits of the FLSA’s overtime wage requirements.   62.  Defendant’s policy of denying Plaintiff and class members overtime wages  represents and results in a violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage requirements.   63.  Defendant has failed to pay appropriate overtime wages under the FLSA.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:  A.  All applicable statutory damages;  B.  A Declaration that Defendant has violated the FLSA;  C.  An Order designating this action as a collective action and directing the issuance  of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b);  D.  An Order appointing Plaintiff and her counsel to represent those individuals  opting in to the collective action;  E.  An Order awarding counsel for Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and   F.  Any further relief which the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.     64.  The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein.   66.  As a consequence of Defendant’s employment practices whereby it automatically  deducts thirty minutes for meal breaks from the pay of hourly, non-exempt employees, Plaintiff  and class members were denied statutory overtime wages.   67.  Plaintiff and class members were employees of Defendant within the meaning of  the IMWL and, as such, were entitled to the benefits of the IMWL’s overtime wage  requirements.   68.  Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the IMWL.   69.  Defendant’s policy of denying Plaintiff and class members overtime wages  represents and results in a violation of the IMWL’s minimum wage requirements.   71.  The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are fully incorporated herein.   72.  The IWPCA provides in relevant part:  “Every employer shall be required, at least semi-monthly, to pay  every employee all wages earned during the semi-monthly pay  period…”  78.  The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are fully incorporated herein.   79.  Plaintiff brings this Count IV in the alternative to her claim under the IWPCA.   80.  Plaintiff and class members were not paid wages for every hour that they worked.   81.  Defendant retained the benefits of Plaintiff’s and class members’ uncompensated  work under circumstances which rendered it inequitable and unjust for Defendants to retain such  benefits without paying for their value.  