14.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff seeks to prosecute his FLSA  claims individually and as a collective action on behalf of all persons who are or  were formerly employed by Defendant as AMs at any time during the relevant  period (the “Collective Action Members”).   15.  Defendant is liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly  compensate Plaintiff and other AMs.   16.  There are many similarly situated current and former AMs who have  not been paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a workweek in  violation of the FLSA and who would benefit from the issuance of a court- supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it.  Thus, notice  should be sent to the Collective Action Members pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   17.  The similarly situated Collective Action Members are known to  Defendant, are readily-identifiable, and can be located through Defendant’s  records.  19.  Defendant maintained control, oversight, and discretion over the  operation of all of its company-owned restaurants, including its employment  practices with respect to the AMs.   20.  Plaintiff’s and the AMs’ work was performed in the normal course of  Defendant’s business and was integrated into it.   21.  Consistent with the Defendant’s policy, pattern and/or practice,  Plaintiff and AMs worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks, but Plaintiff  and AMs did not receive overtime premiums on one or more regularly scheduled  pay dates within the relevant period for hours worked as AMs in excess of 40 in  those workweeks.    22.  All of the work that the Plaintiff and the AMs performed was assigned  by Defendant, and/or Defendant was aware of all of the work that they have  performed.    23.  The work that Plaintiff and the AMs performed as part of their  primary duty required little skill and no capital investment.   25.  Regardless of the store at which they worked, Plaintiff’s and the AMs’  primary job duties included:  a.  preparing food;  b.  helping customers;  c.  bussing tables;  d.  cleaning the restaurant;  e.  checking to make sure that supplies were properly shelved; and  f.  checking inventory.   26.  Regardless of the store at which they worked, Plaintiff’s and the AMs’  primary job duties did not include:  a.  hiring;  b.  firing;  c.  disciplining other employees;  d.  scheduling;  e.  supervising and delegating; or  f.  exercising meaningful independent judgment and discretion.   27.   Plaintiff’s and the AMs’ primary duties were manual in nature.   28.  The performance of manual labor duties occupied the majority of  Plaintiff’s and the AMs’ working hours.   30.  Upon information and belief, Defendant did not perform a person-by- person analysis of the AMs’ job duties when making the decision to classify the  AMs (and other similarly-situated current and former employees holding  comparable positions but different titles) as exempt from the overtime provisions  of the FLSA.   31.  Within approximately several weeks prior to December 1, 2016, and  upon information and belief prior to the issuance of the November 22, 2016  injunction by the Texas federal district court blocking the Department of Labor  from implementing the new overtime rules that would have become effective on  December 1, 2016, Defendant announced to its AMs that it was reclassifying all  AM positions to hourly-paid, overtime non-exempt effective on or about  December 1, 2016.   32.  Upon information and belief, Defendant did not perform a person-by- person analysis of the AMs’ job duties when making that decision to reclassify the  AMs (and other similarly-situated current and former employees holding  comparable positions but different titles) to non-exempt from the overtime  provisions of the FLSA to be effective on or about December 1, 2016.   34.  Upon information and belief, Defendant did not perform a person-by- person analysis of the AMs’ job duties when making that decision not to reclassify  the AMs (and other similarly-situated current and former employees holding  comparable positions but different titles) to hourly-paid non-exempt from the  overtime provisions of the FLSA.   35.  Defendant’s conduct alleged herein was willful and/or in reckless  disregard of the applicable wage and hour laws and was undertaken pursuant to  Defendant’s centralized, company-wide policy, pattern, and/or practice of  attempting to minimize labor costs by not paying overtime premiums to its AMs.   Defendant knew that AMs were not performing work that complied with any  FLSA exemption and it acted willfully or recklessly in failing to classify Plaintiff  in his AM position and other AMs as non-exempt employees.   37.  During the relevant period, Defendant knew or recklessly disregarded  the fact that the FLSA required it to pay employees primarily performing non- exempt duties an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per  workweek.   38.  Accordingly, Defendant’s unlawful conduct was willful and/or in  reckless disregard of the applicable wage and hour laws and undertaken pursuant  to Defendant’s centralized, company-wide policy, pattern, and/or practice of  attempting to minimize labor costs by not paying overtime premiums to AMs.   40.  Defendant’s willful violations of the FLSA are further demonstrated  by the fact that during the relevant period, Defendant failed to maintain accurate  and sufficient time records of work start and stop times for Plaintiff and the  Collective Action Members.     41.  Defendant acted recklessly or in willful disregard of the FLSA by  instituting a policy and/or practice that did not record all hours worked by Plaintiff  and the Collective Action Members during the relevant period.  42.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an  employer engaged in interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for  commerce, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   43.  Defendant is subject to the coverage of the maximum hours and  overtime compensation provisions of the FLSA.   45.  Defendant has engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of  violating the FLSA, as detailed above in this Complaint.   46.  Plaintiff consented in writing to be a party to this action, pursuant to  29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as reflected in the attached consent filed contemporaneously  herewith.   47.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.,  apply to Defendant.   48.  During the relevant period and continuing to the present time,  Defendant had a policy and practice of not paying overtime premiums to Plaintiff  and its AMs (and similarly-situated employees in comparable Assistant Manager  positions but holding different titles), for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per  workweek.   50.  As a result of Defendant’s willful failure to record, report, credit  and/or compensate its employees, including Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Members, Defendant has failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to  each of its employees sufficient to determine the wages, hours, and other  conditions and practices of employment in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201  et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(c) and 215(a).   51.  As a result of Defendant’s policy and practice of minimizing labor  costs by underfunding the labor budgets for its restaurants, Defendant knew or  recklessly disregarded the fact that Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members  were primarily performing manual labor and non-exempt tasks.   53.  As a result of Defendant’s FLSA violations, Plaintiff, on behalf of  himself and the Collective Action Members, is entitled (a) to recover from  Defendant unpaid overtime wages, (b) to recover an additional, equal amount as  liquidated damages, and (c) to recover their unreasonably delayed payment of  wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements of this action, and all  allowable interest, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and the federal rules.   54.  Because Defendant’s violations of the FLSA have been willful, a  three-year statute of limitations applies pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.  Fair Labor Standard Act – Unpaid Overtime Wages  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective  