18.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the  preceding paragraphs.   19.  Plaintiff, those similarly situated, and the members of the proposed FLSA  Collective and Minnesota Rule 23 Class are or were employed by Defendant as home care  workers to provide companionship and related in-home care services for the elderly, ill or  disabled.     20.  Defendant has suffered and permitted Plaintiff to regularly work more than  forty (40) and/or forty-eight (48) hours in certain workweeks.  Upon information and belief,  Defendant has also suffered and permitted the members of the FLSA Collective, and  members of the Minnesota Rule 23 Class to regularly work more than forty (40) and/or  forty-eight (48) hours in certain workweeks.    21.  Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not compensated in accordance  with the FLSA and/or the MFLSA because they were not paid proper overtime wages for  all hours worked over forty (40) and/or forty-eight (48) hours per workweek.  Specifically,  rather than paying them 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty  (40) in a workweek, which is required by the FLSA (29 U.S.C. § 207), and/or over forty  eight (48) in a workweek, which is required by the MFLSA (Minn. Stat. § 177.25),  Defendant paid them “straight time” for all of their overtime hours worked.    23.  During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s hours have varied from  week to week.  In certain workweeks, Defendant required Plaintiff to work double shifts  due to staffing/scheduling needs.  As a result, Plaintiff routinely worked long hours to  ensure her client received the care he needed.  On average, Plaintiff typically worked  approximately fifty (50) to (80) hours per week, depending on the needs of her client each  workweek.     24.  When Plaintiff was hired by Defendant, Plaintiff inquired to Defendant about  whether it paid Personal Care Attendants overtime pay.  Defendant informed her that it did  not, and that all work hours would be paid at her regular hourly rate.     25.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all  preceding paragraphs.   26.  Plaintiff brings Count I of this action individually and on behalf and all  similarly situated individuals in the proposed FLSA Collective.     27.  Pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, employers are generally required to  pay overtime compensation at an hourly rate of 1.5 times an employee’s regular rate of pay  for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.   29.  In October 2013, the United States Department of Labor determined that  these exemptions do not apply to domestic-service workers employed by third-party  agencies or employers.   30.  Beginning on January 1, 2015, the regulations provide that domestic-service  workers employed by third-party agencies or employers are not exempt from the FLSA’s  minimum wage and overtime requirements.  29 C.F.R. § 552.109(a).   31.  As of January 1, 2015, all domestic-service workers employed by third-party  agencies or employers are entitled to overtime compensation at an hourly rate of 1.5 times  the employee’s regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty (40) in a work week.   32.  Plaintiff, and on information and belief, the FLSA Collective, routinely  worked over forty (40) hours per workweek without receiving proper overtime  compensation for their overtime hours worked.   34.  Defendant has violated the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and  215(a)(2), by not paying domestic-service workers, like Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective,  overtime as required by law.   35.  Despite the Department of Labor’s position that domestic-service workers  employed by third-party agencies or employers are not exempt from the FLSA’s minimum  wage and overtime requirements, Defendant has maintained its practice of not paying the  proper overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.   36.  Defendant knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard of the law,  maintained an illegal practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective proper  overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty (40).  37.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the  preceding paragraphs.    38.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b), Plaintiff bring Counts II and III  of this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals in the  Minnesota Rule 23 Class.   40.  There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed Minnesota Rule  23 Class that predominate over and questions solely affecting individual members of the  proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class, including but not limited to the following:  a. Whether Defendant violated Minnesota law for failure to pay all  overtime wages due and owing;  b. The proper measure and calculation of damages; and  c. Whether Defendant’s actions were willful or in good faith.    41.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those members of the Minnesota Rule 23  Class.  Plaintiff, like other members of the proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class, was subject  to Defendant’s practices and policies described in this Complaint.  Further, Plaintiff’s job  duties are typical of the Minnesota Rule 23 Class, as all class members are or were home  care workers.   42.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the proposed  Minnesota Rule 23 Class and has retained counsel experienced in complex wage and hour  class and collective action litigation.   44.  Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the proposed Minnesota  Rule 23 Class to the extent required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.     45.  Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of the FLSA Collective, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding paragraphs.    46.  The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, requires employers to pay non-exempt  employees 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) hours per  workweek.     47.  Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective to  routinely work more than forty (40) hours in a workweek without proper overtime  compensation as required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and its implementing  regulations.   48.  Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for the fact, that it failed to  pay these individuals proper overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA.     49.  Defendant’s failure to comply with the FLSA overtime protections caused  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon.   51.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Minnesota Rule 23  Class, re-alleges and incorporates all allegations in all preceding paragraphs.    52.  Plaintiff and the proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class were or are employees  of Defendant within the meaning of the MFLSA, Minn. Stat. §§ 177.23 and 177.24.   53.  Defendant was or is the employer of Plaintiff and the proposed Minnesota  Rule 23 Class within the meaning of the MFLSA, Minn. Stat. §§ 177.23 and 177.24.   54.  The MFLSA requires employers to pay their employees for hours worked  over forty-eight (48) in an individual work week at a rate no less than one and one-half  times their regular hourly rate of pay.   55.  When Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Minnesota Rule 23 Class straight  time, rather the required one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours worked  over forty-eight (48) in a workweek, it violated the MFLSA.    56.  The foregoing conduct constitutes a willful violation of the MFLSA within  the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 541.07.   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.   On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective    VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – Minn. Stat. § 177.21, et seq.  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class   