18.  During their employment with Defendant, Named Plaintiffs and Defendant’s other  mobile experts and store leads worked as hourly, non-exempt employees.    19.  Defendant automatically deducted 0.5 hours from Named Plaintiffs’ and  Defendant’s other mobile experts’ and store leads’ compensable hours on each shift for a meal  break regardless of whether they actually took an uninterrupted 0.5-hour meal break.    20.  Named Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ other mobile experts and store leads are  regularly unable to take a meal break; however, Defendant still deducted 30 minutes from their  daily pay.    22.  Defendant knew or had reason to know it was not compensating Plaintiffs and  Defendant’s other mobile experts and store leads for working during their meal breaks.   23.  Plaintiffs and Defendant’s other mobile experts and store leads informed Defendant  that they were unable to take meal breaks.    24.  Despite Defendant having a meal deduction override, Defendant did not use the  meal deduction override even after Plaintiffs and Defendant’s other mobile experts and store leads  informed Defendant they were unable to take meal breaks.    25.  Defendant either did not have a policy or practice in place to compensate employees  for missed or interrupted meal breaks, or if Defendant did have a policy or practice in place,  Defendant did not actually follow the policy and compensate employees for missed or interrupted  meal breaks.   b. Allegations regarding uncompensated travel time    27.  For example, Plaintiff Settles spent approximately 45 minutes traveling from CM- Oxford to CM-Fairfield each day she worked at both locations; however, Plaintiff Settles was not  paid for this time.   c. Allegations regarding time punch edits    28.  During Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendant’s managers routinely edited employees’  time punches to reduce the amount of overtime being paid to hourly, non-exempt employees  despite the time punches reflecting the time the employees were working.   29.  By modifying employees’ time punches, Plaintiffs and other mobile experts and  store leads were not fully compensated for all of the work that they performed.    30.  Named Plaintiffs and Defendant’s other mobile experts and store leads regularly  worked more than 40 hours per week, but they were not paid one and one-half times their regular  rate for all of hours worked over 40 as a result of Defendant’s: (1) automatic meal deduction policy  or practice regardless of whether they were able to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break;  (2) its practice and policy of not compensating “part-time” employees for time spent working  traveling from one of Defendant’s stores to another; and/or (3) practice of editing employees’ time  punches to reduce compensable time worked   31.  Defendant’s failure to compensate Plaintiffs and other mobile experts and store  leads as set forth above resulted in unpaid overtime.    32.  At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs and Defendant’s other hourly non-exempt  mobile experts and store leads were employees as defined in the FLSA, the Ohio Acts, and Ohio  Constitution Art. 2 §34a.   34.  During relevant times, Defendant maintained control, oversight, and direction over  Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated mobile experts and store leads, including the  promulgation and enforcement of policies affecting the payment of wages, including overtime  compensation.   35.  During relevant times, Defendant suffered or permitted the Named Plaintiff and  those similarly situated to work more than forty (40) hours per workweek, while not compensating  them for all such hours worked over forty (40) at a rate of at least one and one-half times their  regular rate as a result of Defendant’s company-wide policies or practices described above that  affect Named Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees.   36.  Upon information and belief, Defendant, at all times relevant hereto, was fully  aware of the fact that it was legally required to comply with the wage and overtime payment laws  of the United States and of the State of Ohio as well as recordkeeping laws of the State of Ohio.   37.  During relevant times, Defendant had knowledge of and acted willfully in regards  to its conduct described herein.   38.  Defendant is in possession and control of necessary documents and information  from which Plaintiffs would be able to precisely calculate damages.  IV.  40.  Named Plaintiffs and putative FLSA Collective Members were all subject to the  same policies or practices described above which resulted in unpaid overtime.   41.  During some or all of the last three years, Defendant did not compensate Named  Plaintiffs and the putative collective members for any time spent performing substantial duties for  Defendant’s benefit because employees: (i) were unable to take uninterrupted meal breaks; (ii)  were not compensated for travel time between stores; and/or (iii) had their time punches  improperly modified to reduce compensable time worked.   V.  42.  The Named Plaintiff brings her Ohio Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23 as a class action on behalf of herself and all other members of the following class:   All Ohio current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of  Defendant who worked over 40 hours in any workweek but were not  properly compensated for all of their overtime hours worked under  the FLSA because of: (1) Defendant’s meal deduction; (2)  Defendant’s failure to pay for travel time; and/or (3) Defendant’s  improper time edits, during the three years preceding the filing of  this Complaint and continuing through the final disposition of this  case (“Ohio Rule 23 Class” or “Ohio Rule 23 Class Members”).   43.  The Ohio Rule 23 Class includes all current or former hourly, non-exempt  employees employed by Defendant throughout the State of Ohio as defined above.    44.  The Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.   46.  The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the Rule 23 Class and the  interests of all members of the Rule 23 Class.   47.  The Named Plaintiffs have no interests that are antagonistic to or in conflict with  those interests of the Rule 23 Class that they have undertaken to represent.    48.  The Named Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced class action counsel  who can ably represent the interests of the entire Ohio Rule 23 Class.    49.  Questions of law and fact are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class.    50.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because individual  actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish  incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant with respect to their non-exempt employees.   51.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as Defendant acted  or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Ohio Rule 23 Class, making appropriate  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class  as a whole.   52.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of  law and facts common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual  members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.    54.  A class action is superior to individual actions for the fair and efficient adjudication  of Named Plaintiffs’ claims and will prevent undue financial, administrative and procedural  burdens on the parties and the Court. The Named Plaintiffs and counsel are not aware of any  pending Ohio litigation on behalf of the Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined herein, or on behalf of any  individual alleging a similar claim. Because the damages sustained by individual members are  modest compared to the costs of individual litigation, it would be impractical for class members  to pursue individual litigation against the Defendant to vindicate its rights. Certification of this  case as a class action will enable the issues to be adjudicated for all class members with the  efficiencies of class litigation.   VI.  55.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   56.  This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiffs on behalf  of themselves and the FLSA Collective.    58.  During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant employed  the Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Members.   59.  The Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) Class Members were paid on an hourly basis  and worked in non-exempt positions.   60.  The Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Members regularly worked in  excess of 40 hours in workweeks.   61.  Defendant violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA  Collective by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at time-and-one-half times their regular rates  of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek because of Defendant’s meal  deduction, failure to pay for travel time, and/or improper time punch edits.   62.  The Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Members were not exempt from  receiving FLSA overtime benefits.   63.  Defendant knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of  the FLSA. Despite such knowledge, Defendant willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime  compensation to which Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members are entitled.   64.  The exact total amount of compensation, including overtime compensation, that  Defendant has failed to pay the Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Members is unknown  at this time, as many of the records necessary to make such precise calculations are in the  possession of Defendant or were not kept by Defendant.   66.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   67.  This claim is brought under Ohio Law.    68.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed  by Defendant, and Defendant is an employer covered by the overtime requirements under Ohio  Law.   69.  Ohio Law requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not less than  one and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty  (40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the exemptions of  section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.”  See O.R.C. § 4111.03(A); see  also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   70.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members worked in excess of  the maximum weekly hours permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03, but were not paid overtime wages  for all of such time spent working.   71.  Defendant’s company-wide policies or practices, including their meal deduction,  failure to pay travel time, and improper time punch edits, reduced the Named Plaintiffs’ and Rule  23 Class Members' compensable hours worked, resulting in unpaid overtime.   72.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were not exempt from  the wage protections of Ohio Law.   74.  For Defendant’s violations of R.C. §4111.03, by which the Named Plaintiffs and  the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. The Named  Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and  attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, on behalf of themselves and the Rule 23 Class  Members.  75.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   76.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were employed by  Defendant.   77.  During all relevant times, Defendant was an entity covered by the OPPA and the  Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by Defendant within  the meaning of the OPPA.   78.  The OPPA requires Defendant to pay Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class  Members all wages, including unpaid overtime, on or before the first day of each month, for wages  earned by them during the first half of the preceding month ending with the fifteenth day  thereof, and on or before the fifteenth day of each month, for wages earned by them during the  last half of the preceding calendar month. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(A).   80.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members unpaid wages remain  unpaid for more than thirty (30) days beyond their regularly scheduled payday.   81.  In violating the OPPA, Defendant acted willfully, without a good faith basis, and  with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.  82.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   83.  The Ohio Wage Act requires employers to maintain and preserve payroll or  other records containing, among other things, the hours worked each workday and the total  hours worked each workweek. See O.R.C. § 4111.08. See also, 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2 et seq.   84.  During times material to this complaint, Defendant was a covered employer, and  required to comply with the Ohio Wage Act’s mandates.   85.  Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were covered employees  entitled to the protection of the Ohio Wage Act.   86.  During times material to this complaint, Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act  with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members by failing to properly  maintain accurate records of all hours Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members  worked each workday and within each workweek.   87.  In violating the Ohio Wage Act, Defendant acted willfully and with reckless  disregard of clearly applicable Ohio Wage Act provisions.  89.  The FLSA prohibits, among other things, any person from discharging or in any  other manner discriminating against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint  or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to the FLSA, or has testified  or is about to testify in any such proceeding. 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).   90.  Complaints may be verbal complaints about hours worked or wages paid.   91.  Defendant is an employer covered by anti-retaliation provisions set forth in the  FLSA, which aim to prevent employers from punishing individuals engaging in protected activity.   92.  Plaintiff Settles was subject to the protection of the anti-retaliation provisions of  the FLSA and was not exempt from those protections.   93.  On or about December 6, 2019, Plaintiff Settles engaged in a protected activity  when she contacted Defendant’s Director of Sales, Kristy, to report Defendant’s unlawful policies  and procedures set forth above that resulted in unpaid overtime.   94.  Specifically, Plaintiff Settles informed Kristy that her hours were being altered by  her Store Manager, Josh, in the system to reduce the number of overtime hours she was working,  including during lunches, resulting in unpaid overtime.    95.  Kristy informed Plaintiff Settles that she would speak with Josh on December 9,  2019.   96.  Plaintiff Settles replied to Kristy that she was concerned about Josh’s and Assistant  Store Manager’s reaction to her complaint when they found out.    97.  Kristy told Plaintiff Settles that there will be no retaliation.    99.  Although Defendant maintained a progressive discipline policy, Defendant never  disciplined Plaintiff Settles prior to her termination.  100.  Defendant’s reason for terminating Plaintiff Settles was merely pretext.   101.  Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff Settles because she complained about  Defendant’s wage, overtime, and recordkeeping violations.   102.  By the conduct described above, Defendant has violated and are in violation of 29  U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).  103.  In violating the FLSA, Defendant acted willfully, without a good faith basis and in  reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions.  104.  Plaintiff Settles has been harmed by Defendant’s acts or omissions described  herein.  105.  Plaintiff Settles has been damaged by Defendant’s willful violation of the FLSA  such that she is entitled to compensation therefore, including liquidated damages and attorney’s  fees.  A. Allegations regarding Defendant’s meal deduction    FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME   R.C. 4113.15 — RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR OPPA VIOLATION   R.C. 4111.03 — RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME   RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO WAGE ACT   RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FLSA – PLAINTIFF SETTLES  