(FLSA Overtime Violations)   (Ohio Overtime Violations)   (Violations of Ohio Revised Code 4113.15)   12.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an “employer” within the meaning of the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).    13.  Defendant’s hourly employees included Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins.   14.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an enterprise within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.  § 203(r), and an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).    15.  Defendant is a covered employer within the meaning of the Ohio Wage Act and the  Ohio Prompt Pay Act and, at all times relevant, employed Plaintiff and similarly situated  employees.    16.  At all times relevant, Defendant maintained control, oversight and direction over  Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including timekeeping, payroll, and other employment  practices that applied to them.  Hourly Employees’ Compensation   17.  Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class are current or former hourly employees  of Defendant.   18.  Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins frequently worked more than forty (40) hours in a single  workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA.    19.  Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class frequently worked longer than their  assigned schedules and clocked in and out, accordingly.   4   20.  Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class were not paid any time beyond what was  provided in their schedules as the punch in and punch out clock would inappropriately round  time down.    21.  Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class regularly began work for the day up to  10 to 15 minutes, or more, before their scheduled start time but, pursuant to Defendant’s uniform  companywide policy, did not start getting paid until their scheduled start time.   22.  The types of tasks that were performed before Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins, and the Ohio  Class’s scheduled shifts include obtaining and returning the necessary tools to perform their jobs;  obtaining parts needed to perform their jobs; performing production work; and walking to and  from their assigned areas of the production floor.     23.  Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class were full time employees regularly  scheduled to work 40 hours a week or more. Thus, by failing to pay Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins, and  the Ohio Class for work performed before and after their scheduled shift, Defendant failed to pay  Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class for all of their overtime in nearly every week in which  they worked.   24.  Defendant’s practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for the  time they worked over their scheduled shift and for the actual amount of time they worked  resulted in Plaintiff and others similarly situated being paid less than the amount actually owed  to them.   25.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   5   26.  Plaintiff brings this case as an FLSA “collective action” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), which provides that “[a]n action to recover the liability” prescribed by the FLSA “may be  maintained against any employer … by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or  themselves and other employees similarly situated.”   27.  The Opt-Ins who are “similarly situated” to Plaintiff with respect to Defendant’s  FLSA violations consist of:  All present and former hourly employees of Defendant during the  period three years preceding the commencement of this action to the  present who worked more than forty hours in one or more  workweeks.   28.  Such persons are “similarly situated” with respect to Defendant’s FLSA violations  in that all were hourly employees of Defendant, all were subjected to and injured by Defendant’s  unlawful practice of failing to pay its employees for all hours worked, and all have the same claims  against Defendant for unpaid wages and overtime compensation as well as for liquidated damages,  attorneys’ fees, and costs.   29.  Conditional certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) is proper and necessary so that such persons may be sent a Court-authorized notice  informing them of the pendency of this action and giving them the opportunity to “opt in.”   30.  Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of similarly-situated persons.  Such  persons are readily identifiable through the payroll records Defendant has maintained, and was  required to maintain, pursuant to the FLSA and Ohio law.  29 U.S.C. § 211(c) & 29 C.F.R. § 215.2;  Ohio Const. art. II, § 34a.  31.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.  6   32.  Plaintiff also brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on  behalf of themselves and other members of a class of persons who assert claims under the laws of  the State of Ohio (the “Ohio Class”), defined as:  All present and former hourly employees of Defendant during  the period three years preceding the commencement of this  action to the present who worked more than forty hours in one  or more workweeks.   33.  The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.   Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of class members but avers, upon information and belief,  that it consists of at least hundreds of people.  The number of class members as well as their  identities are ascertainable from the payroll records Defendant has maintained, or was required to  maintain, pursuant to the FLSA and Ohio law.  29 U.S.C. § 211(c) & 29 C.F.R. § 215.2; Ohio  Const. art. II, § 34a.   34.  There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not  limited to:  Whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other class members  for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek; and,  Whether Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and other class  members for time worked beyond their scheduled shifts is lawful.   35.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Class.   Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same uniform course of conduct by Defendant, and are based on  the same legal theories, as the claims of other class members.   36.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class.   Plaintiff’s interests are not antagonistic to, but rather are in unison with, the interests of other class  members.  Plaintiff’s counsel has broad experience in handling class action litigation, including  7  wage-and-hour litigation, and is fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio Class in this  case.   37.  The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Class predominate over  any questions affecting only individual members.  The primary questions that will determine  Defendant’s liability to the class, listed above, are common to the class as a whole, and  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.   38.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Requiring class members to pursue their claims individually  would entail a host of separate suits, with concomitant duplication of costs, attorneys’ fees, and  demands on court resources.  Many class members’ claims are sufficiently small that they would  be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, and risk of pursuing their claims individually.   Certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will enable the issues to  be adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.  39.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   40.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the FLSA’s overtime provisions on behalf  of herself and the Opt-Ins who have joined this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  Plaintiff’s  written consent to becoming a party to this action pursuant to § 216(b) has been filed or will be  filed with the Court.    41.  The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees be paid at a rate of one and one half  times their regular rate for every hour worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.  8   42.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins overtime compensation for all  hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek.   43.  Instead, Defendant had a companywide policy of failing to pay its employees for  all time worked before their scheduled start time.    44.  Defendant’s practices resulted in Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins receiving less overtime  compensation than they were owed.    45.  By engaging in these practices, Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and  regulations thereunder that have the force and effect of law.   46.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins were  injured in that they did not receive overtime compensation due to them pursuant to the FLSA.  29  U.S.C. § 216(b) entitles them to an award of “unpaid overtime compensation” as well as “an  additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”  Section 216(b) further provides that “[t]he court  … shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or Plaintiff, allow a reasonable  attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.”  47.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    48.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the Ohio overtime compensation statute,  Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03, on behalf of herself, the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and all members of the Ohio Class for which certification is sought  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.   49.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an employer covered by the Ohio overtime  compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03.  9   50.  Defendant violated the Ohio overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann.  § 4111.03, by failing to pay all overtime compensation to its hourly workers including Plaintiff,  the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class.   51.  Specifically, among other things, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Ohio  Class for all time spent working beyond their scheduled shift. This practice has resulted in an  underpayment of overtime premiums due to the Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class.   52.  Defendant’s violations of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03 injured Plaintiff, the  Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class members in that they did not receive overtime compensation  due to them pursuant to that statute.   53.  Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.10(A) provides that Defendant, having violated §  4111.03, is “liable to the employee[s] affected for the full amount of the overtime wage rate, less  any amount actually paid to the employee[s] by the employer, and for costs and reasonable  attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court.”   54.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully written  herein.     55.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of Ohio Revised Code 4113.15, on behalf  of herself, and all members of the Ohio Class for which certification is sought pursuant to Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23.   56.  At all times relevant, Defendant was Plaintiff and the Ohio Class’ employer for  purposes of overtime compensation owed.  10   57.  Defendant violated Ohio Revised Code § 4113.15, by failing to pay overtime  compensation to its hourly workers including Plaintiff and the Ohio Class within thirty days of  their regularly scheduled payday.   58.  The number of hours and minutes actually worked by Plaintiff and the Ohio Class  is reflected in time-clock records maintained by Defendant.   59.  Ohio Revised Code Ann. § 4113.15 provides that Defendant, having violated §  4113.15, “is liable to the employee in the amount equal to six per cent of the amount of the claim  still unpaid and not in contest or disputed or two hundred dollars, whichever is greater.”  Defendant.  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  Defendant’s Status as an “Employer”  