(La. Civ. Code Art. 2315 – Conversion)   (La. Rev. Stat. 23:635 – Unlawful Deductions)   (La Civ. Code Art. 2298- Unjust Enrichment)   (Violations of the FLSA – Failure to Pay Overtime)   (Violations of the FLSA – Failure to Pay Correct Overtime Rate)   11.  At all times material hereto, Defendant was an "enterprise engaged in commerce"  within the meaning of the FLSA and had more than $500,000 in annual gross revenues.   Defendant and its employees handle and work with materials that have traveled in interstate  commerce, including trucks and tools manufactured outside the state of Louisiana.   12.  Defendant classifies Plaintiffs and similarly-situated hourly employees as non- exempt and entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.   13.  This lawsuit seeks relief under the FLSA on behalf of two classes of Plaintiffs  who regularly worked more than forty (40) hours in a workweek for Defendant, but were not  paid the proper overtime wages for all time worked.  Plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA are as  follows:  (a) Defendant designates a portion of the straight-time rate of Plaintiffs Bridges,  Theophile, Chairs, and other similarly-situated individuals ("the Bridges  Plaintiffs") as a purported "bonus."  Defendant pays the Bridges Plaintiffs the  specified "bonus" amount for every hour they work, but does not include the  "bonus" amount when calculating their regular rate of pay for purposes of  paying overtime under the FLSA; and   (b) Defendant pays Plaintiff Calderon and other similarly-situated individuals  ("the Calderon Plaintiffs") in cash, with no deductions for payroll taxes, and  does not pay any overtime for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.   Rather Defendant pays the Calderon Plaintiffs their straight-time rate of pay  no matter how many hours they work in a workweek.   15.  When the Calderon Plaintiffs worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek,  Defendant did not pay them one and one-half (1 ½) times their regular rate of pay, but rather paid  only their straight-time rate of pay for all hours worked.   16.  Defendant has violated the rights of the Bridges Plaintiffs and the Calderon  Plaintiffs  by denying them compensation for all hours worked, including failing to pay overtime  for hours worked over forty (40).   17.  Defendant also has a common policy of imposing fines and making deductions  from the wages of some Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated workers ("the Rule 23 Plaintiffs")  for tardiness, absences, and alleged damage to tools, equipment, and customer property.  (Exhibit  B, Employee Points System).     18.  As to tardiness, Defendant deducts $1.00 from the purported "bonus" of the Rule  23 Plaintiffs for every minute that they are late for work.  (Exhibit B, Employee Points System).    Defendant's policy states as follows: "Tardy or Late will result in $1 being withheld from bonus  for each 1 minute absent."   (Id.).     19.  As to absences, Defendant deducts the full amount of the purported "bonus" of  the Rule 23 Plaintiffs if they have an unscheduled absence.  (Exhibit B, Employee Points  System).  In this respect, Defendant's policy states as follows: "No Call/No Show – employee  loses bonus pay for the week."  (Id.).     21.  The above-referenced fines and deductions imposed by Defendant had the effect  of reducing the overtime compensation of the Bridges Plaintiffs, the Calderon Plaintiffs, and the  Rule 23 Plaintiffs in violation of the FLSA.     22.  Defendant’s denial of legal wages and overtime compensation to the Bridges  Plaintiffs, the Calderon Plaintiffs, and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs is, and has been, willful and  deliberate.  23.  The Bridges Plaintiffs bring their claims under Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. § 216(b), as a collective action on behalf of themselves and all persons who have worked  as non-exempt employees for Defendant during the period beginning three years prior to the  filing date of the Complaint and who worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks and  received hourly overtime pay that was calculated based on regular rates that failed to include all  non-excludable compensation under the FLSA, including the purported "bonus" which actually  represents a portion of the employees' straight-time rate.     25.  Defendant is liable to the Bridges Plaintiffs under the FLSA for, inter alia, not  paying the correct overtime rate for all hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.  The  Bridges Plaintiffs consist of other similarly-situated individuals who have not received the  correct overtime rate for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek, and who would benefit  from the issuance of Court-supervised notice and the opportunity to join this lawsuit.  These  similarly-situated individuals are known to Defendant, are readily identifiable, and can be  located through Defendant’s records.   26.  The Calderon Plaintiffs bring their claims under Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. § 216(b), as a collective action on behalf of themselves and all persons who have worked  as non-exempt employees for Defendant and who were not paid overtime compensation for all  hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek during the period beginning three years prior to the  filing date of the Complaint.   27.  The Calderon Plaintiffs are similarly situated in that they have substantially  similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are subject to Defendant’s common practice,  policy, or plan of only paying straight-time for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.     29.  The Rule 23 Plaintiffs bring the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action as a class  action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of themselves and all other workers who have not  received all wages owed as a result of Defendant's unlawful deduction policy,    30.  The members of the proposed classes are so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable.  Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed classes is in excess of  seventy (70) persons.     31.  Plaintiffs Bridges and Theophile represent the Rule 23 Plaintiffs.  Mr. Bridges and  Mr. Theophile will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs and have  retained counsel competent and experienced in class actions and employment litigation,  including wage and hour cases like this one.  There is no conflict between Mr. Bridges, Mr.  Theophile, and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs.     32.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members including, inter alia, the  following: (i) whether Defendant converted wages and compensation owed to the Rule 23  Plaintiffs;  (ii) whether Defendant unlawfully deducted sums from the wages owed to the Rule  23 Plaintiffs; and (iii) whether Defendant has been unjustly enriched by its unlawful deductions  from the wages of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs.   34.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation.  The Rule 23 Plaintiffs have been damaged and are entitled to  recovery as a result of Defendant's common policy and practice.  Class action treatment will  permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single  forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that  numerous individual actions would require.  In addition, class litigation is superior because it will  prevent unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments about  Defendant's practices.     35.  This action is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)  because questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting  only individual members of the proposed classes.  36.  All Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the  preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth.   37.  The FLSA requires employers to pay all non-exempt employees one and one-half  times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.   39.  Thus, Defendant violated and continues to violate the FLSA by not paying the  Bridges Plaintiffs at their required rate of pay, in addition to liquidated damages and interest for  overtime not promptly paid in each paycheck for the applicable pay period.     40.  Defendant’s conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA.   41.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, the Bridges Plaintiffs are entitled to  recover their back overtime pay at the rate of one and a half times their applicable regular rate, in  addition to an equivalent amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees,  and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 216(b).     42.  The Bridges Plaintiffs also seek reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, as provided  by the FLSA.   43.  All Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the  preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth.   44.  The FLSA requires employers to pay all non-exempt employees one and one-half  times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.   45.  Defendant has violated the requirements of the FLSA by engaging in practices  that have deprived the Calderon Plaintiffs of lawful compensation by inter alia, failing to pay  overtime compensation for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.   46.  Defendant's conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA.   47.  As a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Calderon Plaintiffs are entitled to  damages equal to the amount of all uncompensated time, including overtime pay, and an award  of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid compensation owed under the  49.  All Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the  preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth.   50.  Defendant intentionally interfered with and exercised dominion and control over  wages and compensation that the Rule 23 Plaintiffs had the legal right to possess as heretofore  alleged.   51.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of La. Civ. Code Art. 2315, the Rule 23  Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the wages unlawfully withheld by Defendant, costs of the action,  and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to La. Civ. Code Art. 2315.  52.  All Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the  preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth.   53.  La. Rev. Stat. 23:635 prohibits employers from deducting any sum from their  employees' wages, unless as permitted by law.   54.  Defendant unlawfully made deductions from the wages of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs  as heretofore alleged.   56.  As a result of Defendant’s willful violations of La. Rev. Stat. 23:635, the Rule 23  Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendant their unpaid wages, penalty wages, reasonable  attorneys’ fees, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under La. Rev. Stat. 23:632.  57.  All Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in the  preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth.   58.  Additionally, and in the alternative, Defendant has enriched itself without cause  as a result of making unlawful deductions to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs' wages.   59.  Defendant's enrichment was at the Rule 23 Plaintiffs' expense because they would  have received the money owed had Defendant not intentionally and willfully violated federal and  state wage laws through its policy of making unlawful deductions.     60.  The Rule 23 Plaintiffs allege unjust enrichment in the alternative to their state-law  conversion claims.   61.  As a result of Defendant's willful violations of La. Civ. Code Art. 2298, the Rule  23 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their unpaid wages, and pre-judgment and post-judgment  interest under La. Civ. Code Art. 2298. 