26.  The FLSA allows employers to pay less than minimum wage to employees who  receive tips. 29 U.S.C. 203(m). In doing so, an employer may take a “tip credit,” which  allows employers to include in their calculation of tipped employees’ wages an amount  that an employee receives in tips. Id.    27.  In order to apply a tip credit toward an employee’s minimum wage under the  FLSA, an employer must satisfy several conditions, including: (1) the employer must  inform the employee that it will take a tip credit; and, (2) tipped employees must retain  all the tips they receive, except those tips included in a valid tipping pool among  employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. Id.   28.  Defendants have violated and continue to violate the FLSA by requiring their  servers and bartenders to participate in an invalid tip pool, whereby servers and  bartenders must pay a flat rate every shift ($25 for servers and $10 for bartenders) to  management.     29.  Plaintiffs’ participation in the tip pool is mandatory and imposed by Defendants  as a condition of Plaintiffs’ employment throughout the relevant time period.  8   30.  At the start of the relevant statutory period (and before), management claimed, in  writing, the $25 and $10 tip pool contributions went to “front of the house” employees.  However, the hosts who constituted the front of the house did not receive the tips.   31.  When pressed on the issue by Plaintiff Euring and others, management claimed  the money went to the hosts and the food runners. However, neither the hosts nor the  food runners received the $25 and $10 tip pool contributions.   32.  Instead, Defendants Bharathbhai Patel, Charles Patel, and Chicago Chop House  Inc. kept the $25 and $10 tip pool contributions.   33.  In or around October 2017, Defendants Chicago Chop House, Inc. (the Patel  group) sold the restaurant known as Chicago Chip House to Defendant Chop Hospitality  LLC (the McCahill group).   34.  With a new ownership group in place, servers and bartenders hoped the illegal  practice would end. Unfortunately, the McCahill group, which was aware of the tip pool  and how it operated when they bought the business from the Patel group, continued  making use of the tip pool scheme.   35.  In addition to the tip pooling arrangement, there was continuity in restaurant  operations from the time the Patel group owned the restaurant to the time the McCahill  group owned the restaurant.   36.  There was continuity in the work force before and after the sale of the restaurant  from the Patel group to the McCahill group, including but not limited to Plaintiff Euring  as a server and Defendant Siemen as the General Manager.  9   37.  One change the McCahill group did make was to claim, in writing, that the $25  and $10 tip pool contributions went to the maître d’ rather than the “front of the house”  the Patel group falsely stated the money went.   38.  However, that was merely a change in verbiage describing an identical illegal tip  pooling operation as the Chicago Chop House does not and has not had a maître d’ at any  relevant time.   39.  After the sale, Plaintiffs Leisner and Euring asked Defendants McCahill and  Siemen about the tips earmarked for the nonexistent maître d’.   40.  In or around March 2018, Plaintiff Joshua Leissner asked Defendant Doris  Siemen where his $25 shift fee actually went and not only did she refuse to answer, but  she told him that if he did not like paying it, he could quit and go work somewhere else.   41.  On multiple occasions in April and May, 2018, Plaintiffs Leisner and Euring  asked Claudio Aceves, a manager, where the tip pool contributions earmarked for the  nonexistent maître d’ actually went. Aceves said he did not know and would check with  management and finally, after repeated inquiries by Plaintiffs Leisner and Euring, Aceves  said he asked Defendants and was told to leave it alone.   42.  Mr. Euring repeatedly asked Mr. McCahill about the $25 fee he paid every shift  and Mr. McCahill assured Mr. Euring the new ownership group was aware of the issue  and would look into it.   43.  Eventually, in May 2018, Mr. McCahill told all of the servers at a lineup meeting  before service began for the day that the $25 and $10 maître d’ fees went to Defendant  Siemen, who is the General Manager.  10   44.  On a few occasions when the restaurant did not have many customers, Ms.  Siemen told servers that they did not have to pay the full maître d’ tip credit, confirming  that she has control over their pay.   45.  To the extent the tips do go to Defendant Siemen, the General Manager of the  restaurant who has the power to hire and fire employees, set schedules, assign who works  which tables, and directs and supervises the work of Plaintiffs and similarly situated  employees, that is plainly a violation of the allowable use of tip credits under the FLSA.    46.  The FLSA requires employers to pay minimum wages for all hours worked. 29  U.S.C. § 201, et seq.   47.  As a result of Defendants improper use of the tip credit provisions of the FLSA,  Defendants paid regular compensation to Plaintiffs based on an incorrectly low regular  rate of pay.   48.  At all material times, Defendants’ failure to pay wages at the correct rate of pay  was willful.   49.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this collective action to recover unpaid regular  wages under the FLSA.  50.  Plaintiffs restate and incorporate all the above paragraphs by reference.   51.  As a result of Defendants’ improper use of the tip credit provisions of the FLSA,  Defendants paid wages to Plaintiffs based on an incorrectly low regular rate of pay.   52.  At all material times, Defendants’ failure to pay wages at the correct rate of pay  was willful.  11   53.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have  suffered and will continue to suffer lost wages and other damages.  VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: COLLECTIVE  ACTION FOR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES  