11.  Plaintiff was employed as a Collector for Enova from September 2012 through  August 2016.    12.  During her employment, Plaintiff regularly worked forty (40) hours or more per  week.    13.  During the period beginning June 7, 2014 and continuing through the present,  Enova failed to pay Plaintiff and other employees at the appropriate overtime rate required by the  FLSA and IMWL.   14.  Specifically, Defendant failed to properly calculate the overtime rate at which it  compensated Plaintiff and other for their hours worked in excess of forty (40) in individual  workweeks.   15.  Defendant paid Plaintiff and other employees a commission for months where  they met certain performance goals.    16.  When it calculated the overtime rate applicable to Plaintiff and other employees,  Defendant failed to include in the “regular rate” all commission payments it paid to employees  during the same pay period.    17.  As a result of Defendant’s miscalculation of the overtime rate between June 7,  2014 and the present, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other employees all overtime wages  due to them, in violation of the FLSA and IMWL.   18.  A sample payroll record revealing the improper calculation (and violation of the  FLSA and IMWL) is attached as Exhibit A.   4   19.  Plaintiff seeks to represent all employees who have been paid less than the  statutory overtime rate for all overtime for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor  Standards Act, 20 U.S.C. § 207 from June 7, 2014 through the present.  20.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for and on  behalf of the following class:  All persons who (1) were paid an hourly rate plus commissions;  (2) worked during the period of time beginning on June 7, 2014  through the present; (3) worked over forty (40) hours per week in  any one week; and (4) were compensated at less than the required  overtime rate for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per  workweek due to Defendant’s failure to include earned  commissions when calculating the overtime wages due.   21.  The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members of the  Class is impracticable. Plaintiff believes that the putative class numbers in excess of 900  individuals over the statutory timeframe.   22.  Common issues of law and fact predominate the claims of the entire putative  class. Specifically, all claims are predicated on a finding that Defendant failed to properly  calculate the overtime rate due to its employees, resulting in an underpayment in violation of the  FLSA. In short, the claims of the named Plaintiff are identical to the claims of the class  members.   23.  The named Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class because all potential  plaintiffs were subject to Defendant’s uniform practices and policies. Further, the named Plaintiff  and the putative class plaintiffs have suffered the same type of economic damages as a result of  Defendant’s practices and policies.  5   24.  Finally, a class action is the only realistic method available for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy. The expense and burden of individual litigation makes  it impractical for members of the Class to seek redress individually for the wrongful conduct  alleged herein. Were each individual member required to bring a separate lawsuit, the resulting  multiplicity of proceedings would cause undue hardship and expense for the litigants and the  Court, and create the risk of inconsistent rulings, which would be unjust and inequitable.  25.  Plaintiff re-states and incorporates paragraphs 1 – 24 as though fully set forth  herein.     26.  This Count arises from Defendant’s violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et  seq., for its failure to pay McCollum and all putative class members at the correct overtime rate  for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek between June 7, 2014 and the present.     27.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this action may be maintained by a plaintiff who  has been damaged by Defendant’s failure to comply with 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 – 207. Plaintiff  attaches as Exhibit B her Notice of Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff in a Collective Action  under the Fair Labor Standards Act.   28.    All past and present employees of Defendant who worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per week between June 7, 2014 and the present and who did not receive overtime pay at a  rate equal to one and one-half times their “regular rate,” where such regular rate included all  concurrent commission payments, are similarly situated to the Plaintiff, in that Defendant applied  its compensation policies, which violate the FLSA, on company-wide bases for at least all  putative class members.  6   29.  Defendant’s failure to pay all overtime wages due for hours worked over forty  (40) per workweek, is a willful violation of the FLSA, since Defendant’s conduct shows that it  either knew that its conduct violated the FLSA or showed reckless disregard for whether its  actions complied with the FLSA.   30.  The Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the experiences of the putative class  members, as set forth above.   31.  For all members of the putative class to become fully aware of their right to join  this cause of action, a certain period of time, as determined by this Court, is necessary to send  notice to the entire putative class, as well as certain additional time for those members to file  consent forms with this Court as provided by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   32.  The members of the putative class who are still employed by Defendant may be  reluctant to raise individual claims for fear of retaliation.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Shirley McCollum, on behalf of herself and all other similarly  situated individuals, known and unknown, respectfully requests that this Court enter an order as  follows:  a)  Awarding judgment for back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid overtime  compensation earned between June 7, 2014 and the present;  b)  Awarding liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid  overtime compensation found due pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);  c)  Awarding prejudgment interest with respect to the amount of unpaid overtime  compensation;  d)  Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing this action;   e)  Entering an injunction precluding Defendant from violating the Fair Labor  Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; and  f)  Awarding such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.  7  33.  Plaintiff re-states and incorporates paragraphs 1 – 32 as though fully set forth  herein.    34.  This Count arises from Defendant’s violation of the IMWL, 820 ILL. COMP. STAT.  105/1, et seq., for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and putative class members all overtime wages  owed for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek between June 7, 2014 and the  present.     35.  Pursuant to the IMWL, for all weeks during which the Plaintiff and the putative  class members worked in excess of forty (40) hours and received commission payments, they  were entitled to be compensated at an overtime rate which accounted for their commission  payments in determining the “regular rate.”   36.  Defendant violated the IMWL by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the  putative class members with all overtime wages due for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per  workweek.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Shirley McCollum, on behalf of herself and all other similarly  situated persons, known and unknown, respectfully requests that this Court enter an order as  follows:  a)  Determining that this action may be maintained as a class action under Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and/or 23(c)(4);  b)  Appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative and her Counsel as Class Counsel;  c)  Awarding judgment in an amount equal to all unpaid back pay owed to Plaintiff  and all others similarly situated pursuant to the IMWL for time worked between  June 7, 2014 and the present;  8  d)  Awarding prejudgment interest on the back pay in accordance with 815 ILL.  FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  (Collective Action)   ILLINOIS MINIMUM WAGE LAW  (Class Action)  