11.  Sugar Leaf is, and was at all times relevant herein, in the business of, among  other things, making and selling foodstuffs both at its retail location, for catering outside  events, for shipment nationwide through its internet sales website.   12.  Plaintiff was employed by Sugar Leaf in its bakery.  The principal job duty of  Plaintiff was to bake and deliver food.   13.  Plaintiff, and the other bakery employees, were paid on an hourly basis.   14.  Sugar Leaf recorded the hours worked by Plaintiff and the other bakery  employees but did not pay an overtime premium when those employees worked more than  40 hours in a workweek.   15.  Plaintiff and the other bakery employees regularly worked more than forty  hours per week for Sugar Leaf.   16.  Upon information and belief, all technicians employed by Sugar Leaf in its  Branson, Missouri facility are, and were at all times relevant herein, subjected to the same  policies and practices as described above.   18.  The net effect of Sugar Leaf’s policies and practices, instituted and approved  by company managers, is that Sugar Leaf willfully fails to pay correctly calculated overtime  compensation to its technicians and willfully fails to keep accurate time records in order to  save payroll costs.  Sugar Leaf enjoys ill-gained profits at the expense of their employees.   19.  Sugar Leaf failed to post employees’ notice of the overtime requirements of  the FLSA and MMWL as required by 29 U.S.C. § 218b and/or Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.522.   20.  Further, Sugar Leaf’s managers told Plaintiff, and other employees, that Sugar  Leaf was not required to pay overtime and that the employees were not covered by the  FLSA and/or the MMWL.   21.  Sugar Leaf’s managers, including Defendants Todd Jansen and Lori Jansen,  knew or, through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that its statements  regarding its employees’ FLSA and MMWL coverage were incorrect. Upon information and  belief, Sugar Leaf’s manager’s made these incorrect statements in an effort to prevent  employees from questioning Sugar Leaf’s pay practices and/or to prevent employees from  pursuing their rights under the FSLA and/or MMWL. Such actions were sufficient to toll the  applicable statutes of limitations under the doctrine of equitable tolling and/or under Mo.  Rev. Stat. § 516.280.   23.  Plaintiff brings Count I, the FLSA claim, as an “opt-in” collective action  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of themselves and the following subclasses:  Persons who (1) filed a consent to join this lawsuit; (2) are currently working  or previously worked for Sugar Leaf as an hourly employee for any period of  time within three years of the date of consenting to join the suit (plus any  time allowed by the court for tolling of the statute of limitations); and (3)  worked more than 40 hours in a week.   24.  The FLSA claim may be pursued by those who opt-in to this case, pursuant  to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   25.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees,  seeks relief on a collective basis challenging, among other FLSA violations, Sugar Leaf’s  practice of failing to accurately record all hours worked and failing to pay employees for  all hours worked, and failing to properly pay overtime compensation.  The number and  identity of other Plaintiffs yet to opt-in and consent to be party plaintiff may be  determined from the records of Sugar Leaf, and potential class members may easily and  quickly be notified of the pendency of this action.  26.  Plaintiff brings Count II as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on  their own behalf and as the Class Representatives on behalf of the following:  Persons who (1) are currently working or previously worked for Sugar Leaf  as an hourly employee for any period of time within two years of the date of  consenting to join the suit (plus any time allowed by the court for tolling of  the statute of limitations); and (2) worked more than 40 hours in a week.   28.  This class is believed to number approximately 50 persons.  As a result,  joinder of all class members in a single action is impracticable.  Class members may be  informed of the pendency of this class action through direct mail.   29.  There are questions of fact and law common to the class that, under  Missouri state law, predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.   The questions of law and fact common to the class arising from Sugar Leaf’s actions  include, without limitation, the following:  a. Whether Sugar Leaf violated Missouri law when it failed to pay  overtime premium pay;   b. Whether Sugar Leaf had a policy and practice of failing to compensate  technicians for all hours worked;  c. Whether Sugar Leaf failed to pay technicians an overtime premium for  work performed beyond 40 hours in a workweek.  d. Whether Sugar Leaf committed improper acts to prevent the  commencement of an action to recover unpaid overtime by class  member such that would toll the otherwise applicable statutes of  limitations.   30.  The questions set forth above predominate over any questions affecting  only individual persons, and a class action is superior with respect to considerations of  consistency, economy, efficiency, fairness, and equity to other available methods for the  fair and efficient adjudication of the state law claims.   31.  Plaintiff’s claims under Missouri state law are typical of those of the class in  that class members have been employed in the same or similar positions as Plaintiff and  were subject to the same or similar practices as Plaintiff.   33.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Missouri class because he is a  member of the class and his interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of  the class he seeks to represent.  The interests of the members of the class will be fairly  and adequately protected by Plaintiff and his undersigned counsel.  Counsel are  experienced in the litigation of civil matters, including the prosecution of complex wage  and hour, employment, and class action cases.   34.  Maintenance of this action as a class action is a fair and efficient method for  adjudication of this controversy.  It would be impracticable and undesirable for each  member of the class who suffered harm to bring a separate action.  In addition, the  maintenance of separate actions would place a substantial and unnecessary burden on  the courts and could result in inconsistent adjudications, while a single class action can  determine, with judicial economy, the rights of all class members.  35.  Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations set forth above.     37.  The FLSA regulates, among other things, the payment of overtime pay by  employers whose employees are engaged in interstate commerce, or engaged in the  production of goods for commerce, or employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or  in the production of goods for commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   38.  Sugar Leaf is, and at all time relevant has been, subject to the overtime pay  requirements of the FLSA because it is an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce and  its employees are engaged in commerce.   39.  Sugar Leaf violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime.     40.  Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are victims of a common  compensation policy.     41.  Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are entitled to damages equal  to the mandated overtime premium pay within the three years preceding the filing of this  Complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling, because Sugar Leaf acted willfully and knew  or showed reckless disregard in its violation of the requirements of the FLSA.   43.  As a result of these violations of the FLSA’s overtime pay provisions,  compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Sugar Leaf from Plaintiff and all similarly  situated employees.  Accordingly, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Sugar Leaf is liable for  the unpaid overtime premium pay along with an additional amount as liquidated  damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs  of this action.  44.  Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations set forth above.     45.  Sugar Leaf violated Missouri law, in relevant part, by failing to pay overtime  premium pay to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as required by Mo. Rev. Stat. §  290.502 and § 290.505.   Violation of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law  (Brought Against Sugar Leaf by Plaintiff Individually and in their Capacity  as the Class Representatives on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated)   Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938  (Brought Against Sugar Leaf by Plaintiff Individually and  on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated)  