(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (O.R.C. § 4111.03 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (R.C. § 4113.5 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO  PROMPT PAY ACT)   23.  At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants as an  STNA from approximately May 2017 when Defendants jointly purchased and/or began jointly  operating Isabelle Ridgway through August 2017.   24.  As an STNA, Plaintiff was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendants as  defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts.   25.  During her employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff was not fully and  properly paid for all of her compensable hours worked because Defendants did not properly  calculate her regular rate of pay for the purposes of lawfully paying her for her overtime hours  worked, resulting in unpaid overtime wages.   26.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked in excess of 40 hours in a  workweek.   27.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were compensated on an hourly,  not a salary or fee basis.   29.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees routinely earned additional  remuneration to their hourly compensation.   30.  The FLSA and Ohio Wage Act required Defendants to pay overtime compensation  to their employees at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for the hours they worked  in excess of forty. 29 U.S.C. § 207; O.R.C. §§ 4111.03, 4111.10.   31.  Defendants did not pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and/or similarly situated  employees at the time-and-a-half regular rate required. The FLSA and Ohio Wage Act required  Defendants to pay overtime compensation to their hourly employees at one and one-half times  their “regular rate” of pay, and to include in the calculation of their regular rates “all remunerations  for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,” including commissions. 29 U.S.C. §  207(e)(3); 29 C.F.R. 778.117; O.R.C. § 4111.03(A) (incorporating FLSA standards).   32.  Defendants unlawfully excluded the additional remuneration that was paid to  Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and the Ohio Class in determining their  “regular rates” for purposes of overtime compensation during weeks wherein they worked more  than forty (40) hours. Defendants thereby miscalculated their regular rates and underpaid their  overtime compensation.   33.  Defendants are each jointly an “employer” of Plaintiff and others similarly situated  as that term is defined by the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.   34.  Upon information and belief, Defendants, at all times relevant hereto, were fully  aware of the fact that they were legally required to comply with the wage and overtime payment  laws of the United States and of the State of Ohio.    36.  Defendants are in possession and control of necessary documents and information  from which Plaintiff would be able to precisely calculate damages.   37.  Plaintiff neither primarily performed managerial duties nor supervised two or more  employees. Plaintiff could not hire, fire, or discipline employees.   38.  Plaintiff’s primary job duties did not consist of the exercise of discretion and  independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.   39.  At all times, Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt hourly employee entitled to  overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in any workweek.    40.  During the relevant time period, Defendants applied the same pay practices and  policies to all hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff.   41.  Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been fully and  lawfully compensated for all of their compensable hours worked due to the aforementioned  policies and practices of not paying employees the correct overtime rate for all hours worked over  40 in a workweek.    42.  Defendants knew or should have been aware that Plaintiff and other similarly  situated employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek and were entitled to be  paid an overtime rate based on the correct regular rate of pay, but they willfully elected not to fully  compensate their employees during all times relevant.   43.  Defendants’ joint failure to fully and properly pay Plaintiff and other similarly  situated employees resulted in unpaid overtime wages.  44.  Named Plaintiff brings her FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a  representative action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees of the opt-in  class, consisting of:  All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of  Defendants who received remuneration payments in addition to their  normal hourly rate of pay during any workweek that they worked  over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three years preceding the  filing date of this Complaint and continuing through the date of final  disposition of this case (the “§216(b) Class” or the “§216(b) Class  Members”).   45.  This FLSA claim is brought as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  §216(b) as to claims for overtime compensation withheld in violation of the FLSA, liquidated  damages, and attorneys' fees. In addition to the Named Plaintiff, numerous putative 216(b) Class  Members have been denied proper overtime compensation due to Defendants’ company-wide  payroll policy and practice of not fully and properly compensating their employees at the proper  overtime rate during workweeks when they received remuneration payments in addition to their  normal hourly rate of pay. The Named Plaintiff is representative of those other similarly situated  employees and is acting on behalf of their interests as well as her own in bringing this action.   46.  The identity of the putative 216(b) Class Members are known to Defendants and  are readily identifiable through Defendants’ payroll records. These individuals may readily be  notified of this action, and allowed to opt into it pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), for the purpose of  collectively adjudicating their claims for overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'  fees and costs under the FLSA.   48.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   49.  Named Plaintiff brings her Ohio Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 as  a class action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated of the following class, consisting  of:  All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of  Defendants who received remuneration payments in addition to their  normal hourly rate of pay during any workweek that they worked  over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three years preceding the  filing date of this Complaint and continuing through the date of final  disposition of this case (the “Ohio Rule 23 Class,” the “Rule 23  Class,” or the “Ohio Rule 23 Class Members”).   50.  During relevant times, Plaintiff and those Ohio Rule 23 Class Members worked  more than forty (40) hours per workweek, but were not correctly compensated at a rate of at least  one and one-half times their correct regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 because  of Defendants’ policy and practice of not fully and properly compensating their employees at the  proper overtime rate during workweeks when they received remuneration payments in addition to  their normal hourly rate of pay.    51.  The Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.   52.  Named Plaintiff is a member of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and her claims for unpaid  wages are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   54.  Named Plaintiff has no interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict with those  interests of the Ohio Rule 23 Class that she undertaken to represent.   55.  Named Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced class action counsel who  can ably represent the interests of the entire Ohio Rule 23 Class.   56.  Questions of law and fact are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   57.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because individual  actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish  incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants with respect to their non-exempt employees.   58.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as Defendants acted  or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Ohio Rule 23 Class, making appropriate  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class as a  whole.   59.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of  law and facts common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual  members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.    61.  A class action is superior to individual actions for the fair and efficient adjudication  of Named Plaintiff’s and the Ohio Rule 23 Class’ claims and will prevent undue financial,  administrative and procedural burdens on the parties and the Court. Named Plaintiff and counsel  are not aware of any pending Ohio litigation on behalf of the Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined herein,  or on behalf of any individual alleging a similar claim. Because the damages sustained by  individual members are modest compared to the costs of individual litigation, it would be  impractical for class members to pursue individual litigation against the Defendants to vindicate  their rights. Certification of this case as a class action will enable the issues to be adjudicated for  all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.  62.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   63.  This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiff on behalf  of herself and the §216(b) Class.   64.  During the relevant time period preceding this Complaint, Defendants jointly  employed the Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members.   66.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours in a  workweek.   67.  The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for every hour worked  in a workweek.  See 29 U.S.C. § 206(b).   68.  The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees receive overtime compensation of  their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. See 29 U.S.C.  § 207(a)(1).   69.  Under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e), “regular rate” of pay shall be broadly deemed to include  all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee like the type of Named  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(e); see also 29 C.F.R. § 778.208.   70.  Named Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving FLSA overtime benefits because,  inter alia, she was not an “executive,” “administrative,” or “professional” employee, as those terms  are defined under the FLSA.  See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, et seq.   71.  Named Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving FLSA overtime benefits because,  inter alia, she was not a “learned professional” employee, as that term is defined under the FLSA.   See 29 CFR § 541.301.   72.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members frequently worked in excess of 40  hours per week and received additional remuneration to their hourly rates at times during such  workweeks.   74.  Defendants violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiff and the §216(b)  Class by, inter alia, failing to fully compensate them at time-and-one-half times their regular rates  of pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in workweeks because Defendant did not properly  calculate their employees’ overtime rate when they received remuneration payments in addition to  their normal hourly rate of pay.    75.  Defendants knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of  the FLSA. Defendants jointly and willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime compensation  to which Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Members are entitled.   76.  The exact total amount of overtime compensation that Defendants failed to pay the  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members is unknown at this time, as many of the records  necessary to make such precise calculations are in the possession of Defendants or were not kept  by Defendants.   77.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ joint conduct, the Named Plaintiff  and the §216(b) Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. The Named  Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and  attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, on behalf of herself and the 216(b) Class  Members.  78.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   79.  This claim is brought under Ohio Law.    81.  Ohio Law requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not less than  one and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty  (40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the exemptions of  section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.”  See O.R.C. § 4111.03(A); see  also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   82.  The Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class worked in excess of the maximum  weekly hours permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03, but were not correctly paid their overtime rate  for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in workweeks that they received remuneration  payments in addition to their normal hourly rate of pay.    83.  Defendants’ company-wide corporate policy and/or practice of not properly paying  their hourly, non-exempt employees the correct overtime rate for each hour worked over forty (40)  hours in workweeks that employees received remuneration payments in addition to their normal  hourly rate of pay resulted in unpaid overtime wages for the Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23  Class.   84.  Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were not exempt from the  wage protections of Ohio Law.   85.  Defendants violated the Ohio Wage Act with respect to Named Plaintiff and the  Ohio Rule 23 Class by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at time-and-one-half times their  correct regular rates for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek because Defendants  did not properly calculate their employees’ overtime rate when they received remuneration  payments in addition to their normal hourly rate of pay.    87.  Defendants’ repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to the Named  Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were violations of R.C. §4111.03, and as such,  Defendants jointly acted willfully.    88.  For Defendants’ violations of R.C. §4111.03, by which the Named Plaintiff and  those similarly situated Ohioans have suffered and continue to suffer damages; the Named Plaintiff  and those similarly situated Ohioans seek unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated  damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available.   89.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   90.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have  been jointly employed by Defendants.    91.  During relevant times, Defendants were each an entity covered by the OPPA and  the Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been jointly employed by  Defendants within the meaning of the OPPA.    93.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not paid  all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay within thirty  (30) days of performing the work. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(B).   94.  The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ unpaid wages remain  unpaid for more than thirty (30) days beyond their regularly scheduled payday.   95.  The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been harmed and  continue to be harmed by such unpaid wages.   96.  In violating the OPPA, Defendants jointly acted willfully, without a good faith  basis and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law. 