15.  Potential opt-in members of the collective action are similarly situated to Plaintiff. They  all held the same job positions and had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions.  They are or were subject to the same common practices, policies, and plans of Defendants. They  all suffer damages in the nature of lost overtime and minimum and other wages resulting from  Defendants’ wrongful conduct.   16.  Plaintiff brings the third Cause of Action, the South Carolina Payment of Wage Act  (“SCPWA”) claims, as an opt-out class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former individuals  employed by Defendants as waste disposal drivers by Defendants in South Carolina within three  (3) years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit. (“SC Rule 23 Class”).    18.  In addition, upon information and belief, this action satisfies one or more of the  requirements of Rule 23(b) Fed. R. Civ. P., because the questions of law and/or fact common to  the members of the proposed Plaintiff class predominate over any questions affecting only  individual members.   20.  Upon information and belief, Defendants throughout the State of South Carolina violate  the SCPWA. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or  indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing claims because doing so can harm  their employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure employment. Class actions  provide class members who are not named in the complaint a degree of anonymity, which allows  for the vindication of their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.    21.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(3).   22.  Defendants have residential, commercial, and industrial divisions that employ waste  disposal drivers.   23.  Defendants’ waste disposal drivers all collect, transport, and dispose of waste.    24.  Defendants’ waste disposal drivers are all nonexempt employees under the FLSA.   25.  Plaintiff is a nonexempt waste disposal driver for Defendants.    26.  Class Members are (and/or were) nonexempt waste disposal drivers for Defendants  within the three (3) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit.    28.  Plaintiff and the Class Members are similarly situated with respect to their job duties,  their pay structure, and, as set forth below, the policies of Defendants resulting in FLSA  violations.   Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and Class Members overtime in accordance with the  66.  Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained above as if repeated here verbatim.     67.  This cause of action arises from Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, for  its failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at the proper overtime rate of  one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per  workweek.   68.  As set forth above, Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees, were or have  been employees of Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 207(a).   69.  As set forth above, Defendants were “employer[s]” of Plaintiff, and all other similarly  situated employees, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.  § 203(d).   70.  At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants engaged in interstate commerce or in the  production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and 203(s).    71.  At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants’ annual gross volume of sales made or business  done was not less than Five Hundred Thousand and 0/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars. Alternatively,  Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees, worked in interstate commerce so as to fall  within the protection of the FLSA.    73.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals regularly work or worked well more than  forty (40) hours per week every week, usually at least fifty-six (56) or more hours per week.   74.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at the overtime  rate of one and one half times the normal rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) per  workweek as further described above.    75.  Defendants’ practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members the time and a half  rate for hours in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek violates the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 207.    76.  None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA regulating the duty of employers to pay  overtime at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which its employees are  employed are applicable to the Defendants or the Plaintiff and the Class Members.    77.  Defendants’ failure to pay compensation at the overtime rate for all hours worked over  forty (40) per workweek, is a willful violation of the FLSA, since the company’s conduct shows  that they either knew that their conduct violated the FLSA or showed reckless disregard for  whether its actions complied with the FLSA.   78.  Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained above as if repeated here verbatim.     80.  Defendants are an “employer” as defined by the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act  (“SCPWA”), S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-10(1), because they employ individuals in the State of  South Carolina.    81.  Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-40(C) of the SCPWA, “[e]very employer shall notify  each employee in writing at the time of hiring of the normal hours and wages agreed upon, the  time and place of payment . . . .” and the “employer shall furnish each employee with an  itemized statement showing his gross pay and the deductions made from his wages for each pay  period.”    82.  Defendants willfully failed to provide Plaintiff and others similarly situated with proper  notice at the time of their hiring as required by the law nor did Defendants provide them with  compliant wage statements for each of their pay periods as required by the law.    83.  Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-40(C) of the SCPWA, “[a]n employer shall not  withhold or divert any portion of the employee’s wages unless the employer is required or  permitted to do so by state or federal law . . . .”    84.  Further, “any changes [to] the terms [of wages] must be made in writing at least seven  calendar days before they become effective.” S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-30(A).    85.  Defendants, however, did not pay Plaintiff and the SC Class members all wages due to  them, nor did Defendants provide Plaintiff and the SC Class members with at least seven days  advance written notice of the deductions or the amounts of the deductions Defendants made to  their paychecks.    87.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the members of the SC Class are entitled to receive all  compensation of “wages” due and owing to them.   88.  Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated “wages” as  defined in section 41-10-10(2) of the SCPWA for all work performed, according to the law.   89.  Defendants have withheld wages of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated without  providing advance notice of such amounts and absent any lawfully sufficient reason for such  conduct.    90.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful conduct, Plaintiff and others  similarly situated have suffered substantial losses and have been deprived of compensation to  which they are entitled, including monetary damages in the amount of three (3) times the amount  of their unpaid wages as well as costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.  § 41-10-80 of the SCPWA.  Violation of South Carolina Payment of Wages Act S.C. Code § 41-10-10, et. al.   (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the SC Rule 23 Class)   Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 207   (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective)  