10.  The Admiral has misclassified its exotic dancers as independent  contractors, when in reality they are employees.   11.  The Admiral has exercised extensive control over the manner in which its  exotic dancers perform their jobs and conduct themselves while on the club’s premises,  including where to be on the premises and when, what they are allowed to wear,  requiring certain outfits to coordinate with nightly themes the club chooses, how much  they can receive for private dances and sessions, and how they can interact with  customers. For example, dancers must dance on stage for at least two songs at a time;  they must remove their top during the first ten to fifteen seconds of the first song and  remove their bottom during the first ten to fifteen seconds of the second song; they are  not allowed to carry a phone with them on the floor; and they must receive permission  from management to leave the premises before the end of the night. The dancers have  no control over the customer volume, advertising, or atmosphere at the club, which is  controlled entirely by Defendants. Defendants require dancers to report to the stage and  offer a floor dance and promotional branded T-shirts at least once during the night. On  4  certain nights, Defendants also require dancers to perform “mystery dances” and “two- for-one specials” for customers.    12.  Defendants retain the power to hire and fire the exotic dancers and have  disciplined or threatened to discipline dancers who do not comply with Defendants’  requirements regarding the manner and means of their work. Specifically, Defendants  charge a fine to dancers or send them home if they are caught chewing gum on the  premises, and Defendants also charge a fine if dancers are late getting on stage at the  required time.   13.  At all relevant times, Admiral dancers have not held themselves out to be  in business for themselves. Instead, the dancers are economically dependent on their  relationship with Defendants for a substantial portion of their earnings.   14.   In addition, the Admiral is in the business of providing adult entertainment  to its patrons. Its website advertises “the Best All-Nude Gentlemen’s Club in  Chicagoland” and offers patrons “over 100 beautiful showgirl entertainers.” Thus, the  dancers clearly perform services in the usual course of Defendants’ business, and  without the dancers, the Admiral would have no business, such that the dancers’ work is  integral to Defendants’ business.   15.  At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have treated Plaintiff  and their other dancers in a substantially similar manner with respect to their policies  and practices.    16.  At all relevant times the federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour.   17.  At all relevant times the minimum wage in Illinois has been $8.25 per hour.  5   18.  On July 1, 2015, pursuant to the City of Chicago’ Minimum Wage  Ordinance, the minimum wage in Chicago increased to $10.00 per hour.    19.  Defendants did not pay the exotic dancers who have worked at the  Admiral the prevailing minimum wage.   20.  The exotic dancers who have worked at the Admiral receive compensation  only in the form of gratuities from patrons.    21.  In order to perform their job, the dancers have been required to pay  “house fees” to the Admiral in an amount between $40 and $180 for every shift.     22.  The dancers have also been required to share their tips with managers  and with non-service employees or agents of the Admiral, such as “house moms,” disc  jockeys, security, and makeup artists.    V.  23.   Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a collective action pursuant  to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of a class of all individuals who worked as an exotic  dancer at the Admiral at any time between three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit  and the entry of judgment in this case, who may choose to “opt-in” to join this lawsuit.     24.  Plaintiff attaches as Exhibit A her Notice of Consent to Become a Party  Plaintiff in a Collective Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.     25.  Plaintiff also brings this action individually and as a class action under  Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all individuals who worked  as exotic dancers at the Admiral at any time between ten years prior to the filing of this  lawsuit and the entry of judgment in this case (with respect to the claims brought under  the IWPCA) and between three years prior to filing this lawsuit and the entry of  6  judgment in this case (with respect to the claims brought under the IMWL).     26.  This action on behalf of the Rule 23 class satisfies the requirements of  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), as alleged in the following particulars:  a. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all individual members in  this action is impracticable;  b. There are questions of law and/or fact common to the members of the  proposed class regarding; (1) the Admiral’s conduct in classifying exotic  dancers as independent contractors; (2) failing to ensure they are paid at  least minimum wage for their work, and (3) effectively making illegal  deductions from their wages by uniformly requiring dancers to pay a portion of  their tips to the Defendant and to managers and other non-service  employees.   c. The claims of Plaintiff Wisniewska are typical of the claims of the proposed  class and she has the same interests as the other members of the class; and  d. Plaintiff Wisniewska will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class  as she has retained able counsel experienced in class action litigation, and  her interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of the  other class members.   27.  In addition, this action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b),  because the questions of law and/or fact common to the members of the proposed  class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class  action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the  controversy because joinder of all class members is impractical. The class is readily  7  definable and prosecution of this action as a class action will eliminate the possibility of  repetitive litigation. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class  action.  28.  Defendant Admiral Theatre, Inc. d/b/a The Admiral Theatre is an  “employer” for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §203(s), because it  has annual gross sales or business of at least $500,000 and has employees engaged in  interstate commerce as it is an enterprise whose employees engage in commerce,  including entertainment as well as the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages.     29.  The individual Defendant Sam Cecola is also an “employer” under 29  U.S.C. § 203(d) because he has acted directly or indirectly in the interests of Defendant  Admiral in relation to its employees, including Plaintiff and other exotic dancers who  have worked at the Admiral in Chicago, Illinois.     30.  Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class are employees of  Defendants for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act during all times relevant to this  Complaint. Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the proposed  class an hourly rate of at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as required  by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C).    31.  Further, Defendants are not permitted to take the tip credit against the  minimum wage (and thus pay the reduced hourly rate for tipped employees of $2.13 per  hour) because it did not provide the required notice to the dancers in order to take the  tip credit and because the dancers have not been allowed to retain all tips they have  8  received, but instead have been required to share their tips with management and with  other employees or agents of Defendants who are not among employees who  customarily and regularly receive tips, and not pursuant to a valid tip pooling or sharing  arrangement under applicable law.     32.  Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class are entitled to back  wages at the minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour for every hour worked, pursuant to  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The failure of Defendants to compensate Plaintiff and the  members of the class at least minimum wage was knowing, willful, intentional, and done  in bad faith. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other dancers,  performing the same job functions, were being improperly misclassified as independent  contractors given the wealth of case law that has concluded similarly-situated exotic  dancers are employees of the clubs for which they work.   33.  Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class are also entitled to  liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid minimum wages due to them under  the FLSA, pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  34.  At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff and the members of the proposed  class were employed by Defendants as “employees” within the meaning of the IMWL,  820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/3(d).   35.  At all relevant times, Defendants were “employers” as defined in the  IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/3(c).  9   36.  Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class were not paid proper  minimum wages under the IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/1, et seq., during their  employment with Defendants.    37.  Pursuant to 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/4, Plaintiff and the other members of  the proposed class were entitled to be compensated at the applicable State minimum  wage rate of $8.25 per hour for all hours worked.   38.  Defendants’ willful conduct in failing to ensure that its exotic dancers receive  the Illinois state minimum wage constitutes a violation of 820 ILCS § 105/1, et seq. This  claim is brought on behalf of all dancers who have worked at the Admiral in the last  three years prior to the date of filing of this Complaint until the date of judgment in this  action. See 820 §ILCS 105/12.  39.  Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class were not paid proper  minimum wages under the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance, during their employment  with Defendants.    40.  Pursuant to the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance, Plaintiff and the other  members of the proposed class were entitled to be compensated at the minimum wage  rate of $10.00 per hour for all hours worked.   41.  Defendants’ willful conduct in failing to ensure that its exotic dancers receive  the Chicago minimum wage constitutes a violation of the Chicago Minimum Wage  Ordinance. This claim is brought on behalf of all dancers who have worked at the Admiral  at any time since July 1, 2015.   10  42.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class were  “employees” of Defendants as defined by the IWPCA.   43.  At all relevant times, Defendants were employers of Plaintiff and the  members of the proposed class as defined by the IWPCA.   Failure to Pay Minimum Wage, 820 ILCS § 105/1, et seq.   Failure to Pay Minimum Wage, Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance   Failure to Pay Minimum Wage in Violation of the FLSA   Failure to Pay Wages and Illegal Deductions 820 ILCS § 115, et seq.  