(ILLINOIS MINIMUM WAGE LAW AND OTHER SIMILAR STATE WAGE LAWS)   (ILLINOIS WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION ACT AND OTHER SIMILAR  STATE WAGE LAWS)   (VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 29 U.S.C. §201 ET SEQ.  PLAINTIFF, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF THE FLSA COLLECTIVE)   18.  In an effort to provide low cost merchandise to its customers and still maximize  profits, Defendant Dollar Tree has engaged a policy, pattern or practice of requiring its thousands  of Hourly Associates and Assistant Managers to work without pay, in several ways, including,  but not limited to: (1) requiring Hourly Associates and Assistant Managers to clock-out for a  half-hour lunch break, but then require them to work during that uncompensated lunch break; (2)  requiring Hourly Associates and Assistant Managers to increase store productivity by working  “off the clock”; and (3) requiring Hourly Associates and Assistant Managers to clock-out to  prepare deposits at the store and then make those deposits at the bank. Deposits are made at the  end of each shift and Hourly Associates and Assistant Managers are not compensated for their  time spent performing this work.    19.  Defendant Dollar Tree maintains operating policies and procedures that apply  uniformly to all stores nationwide. Regardless of the size of the store, its location or district,  every detail of how the store is managed and run is uniformly fixed, mandated and controlled by  Defendant through its policies, directives, and mandated procedures.   20.  Defendant Dollar Tree has standard and uniform human resource and employment  policies and practices, including policies and practices governing wages and compensation, that  apply to all of its employees nationwide.    22.  At all times material to this action, Plaintiff, Marina LaFleur, was employed as an  Assistant Manager by Defendant, Dollar Tree, and was a full time, permanent employee.  Plaintiff LaFleur was employed in this capacity from in or about October 2007, through on or  about March 15, 2011.    23.  At all times material to this action, Plaintiff, Theresa Croy, was employed by  Defendant, Dollar Tree, as a permanent employee, in both the positions of Hourly Associate and  Assistant Manager. From in or about November 2009, through in or about April 2010, Plaintiff  Croy was employed as a full time, Hourly Associate. From in or about April 2010, through in or  about January 2011, Plaintiff Croy was employed as a “part-time” Assistant Manager. From in or  about January 2011, through the present, Plaintiff Croy has been and continues to be employed  by Defendant as a “full-time” Assistant Manager.     24.  This action is brought to recover unpaid compensation, in the form of  compensation for time which was worked “off the clock,” which are owed to Plaintiffs and all  current and former employees of Defendant who are similarly situated, pursuant to the FLSA, the  IMWL, the IWPCA and the like statutes of all of the 48 contiguous states where Dollar Tree  operates.    25.  Defendant has a uniform policy and practice of consistently requiring their Hourly  Associates and Assistant Managers to work “off the clock” and have denied them wages and  overtime wages due and owing for such work.   27.  Plaintiffs LaFleur and Croy were employed by the Defendant in the position of  Assistant Manager.  In that position, Plaintiffs were required to work “off the clock” at various  times during the work day, including but not limited to: (1) after their shifts had ended; (2) when  they were required to clock out but continue working and during their lunch break; and (3) at  other times during their respective shifts when they were required to clock out but continue  working.     28.  Assistant Managers, including Plaintiffs LaFleur and Croy, are routinely required  to clock-out at the end of their shift, prepare deposits at the store, travel to the bank and then  make the deposits for Dollar Tree. This process equates to at least 15 minutes of unpaid time for  every occasion on which Plaintiffs and similarly situated current and former Assistant Managers  are required to work “off the clock” in this manner.     29.  Additionally, Assistant Managers, including Plaintiffs LaFleur and Croy, are  required to clock out for a thirty minute lunch break during each shift, yet required to work  during this time period without clocking back in. During this “off the clock” time, Plaintiffs and  other current and former Assistant Managers are required to perform tasks such as cashier,  handling customer inquiries or complaints, stocking, unloading freight trucks, facing  merchandise, cleaning, and other job duties.    31.  Additionally, Hourly Associates, including Plaintiff Croy, are required to clock  out for a thirty (30) minute lunch break during each shift, yet required to work during this time  period without clocking back in. During this “off the clock” time, Plaintiff and other similarly  situated current and former Hourly Associates are required to perform tasks such as cashier,  handling customer inquiries or complaints, stocking, unloading freight trucks, facing  merchandise, cleaning and other job duties.    32.  Assistant managers, including Plaintiffs, are routinely scheduled to work forty  (40) hours per week, but because Defendant required Assistant Managers, including Plaintiffs, to  work “off the clock”, Assistant Managers additionally work approximately 30 to 45 minutes each  day without compensation. If Assistant Managers, including Plaintiffs, had been compensated for  the 30 to 45 minutes each day that they worked beyond their regularly scheduled 40 hours per  week, they would have worked those additional times as overtime.   33.  Hourly Associates were usually scheduled to work just under forty (40) hours per  week, to avoid paying them overtime, but on many occasions were required to work forty hours  or more per week.    34.   Every day, Defendant required Hourly Associates to work “off the clock” for 30  to 45 minutes each day without compensation.  Hourly Associates have been denied both straight  time wages and overtime wages.    36.  Defendant Dollar Tree explained in its 2010 Annual Report that: “In 2007,  legislation was enacted that increased the Federal Minimum Wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25  an hour over a two year period with the final increase being enacted in June 2009. As a result,  our wages increased in 2009 and through the first half of 2010; however, we partially offset the  increase in payroll costs through increased productivity and continued efficiencies in product  flow to our stores.” (emphasis added) Defendant Dollar Tree further acknowledges, in its 2010  Annual Report, that wage rates are “(c)osts that are critical to our operations.”   37.  Defendant Dollar Tree offsets payroll costs by forcing Hourly Associates and  Assistant Managers to perform work “off the clock” and without pay.    38.  Defendant Dollar Tree “increases productivity” by forcing Hourly Associates and  Assistant Managers to perform more work and by refusing to pay them for their work.    39.  At all times material to this action, Defendant was and is an enterprise engaged in  commerce as defined by § 203(s)(1) of the FLSA.   40.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was the “employer” of Plaintiffs as  defined by § 203(d) of the FLSA.    41.  At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs were “employees” of Defendant as  defined by § 203(e)(1) of the FLSA, and worked for Defendant within the territory of the United  States within three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit.   43.  On a daily basis, continuous and regular basis, Plaintiffs and all similarly situated  Hourly Associates and Assistant Managers are required to work without compensation, including  regular and overtime compensation.   44.  Defendant has intentionally failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiffs and all other  similarly situated current and former Hourly Associates and Assistant Managers compensation  according to the provisions of the FLSA and applicable state wage laws.   45.  Defendant’s systems, policies, patterns or practices relating to its non-payment of  both regular and overtime compensation to Hourly Associates and Assistant Managers have  existed since at least 2007.   46.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs, as well as all other  similarly situated employees, have suffered damages by failing to receive compensation in  accordance with § 207 of the FLSA and applicable state wage laws.   47.  Defendant has intentionally and repeatedly misrepresented the true time worked  by their Hourly Associates and Assistant Managers, as well as their entitlement to both regular  and overtime compensation for the time that they worked “off the clock” in order to avoid  suspicion and inquiry by employees regarding their entitlement to monies owed to them.   Plaintiffs, as well as all similarly situated present and former employees, relied upon these  misrepresentations by Defendant and were unable to determine their true wages under the FLSA  by the exercise of reasonable diligence because of those misrepresentations.     49.  According to Jim Bailey, a former Store Manager of Defendant, requiring Hourly  Associates and Assistant Managers to work “off the clock” in the manners described herein is a  common and uniform policy, pattern or practice of Defendant, throughout all of its locations. Mr.  Bailey worked as a Manager at Defendant’s Elgin, Illinois store, where he personally observed  the policies, patterns or practices complained of herein. Mr. Bailey also worked as a Manager at  Defendant’s Wheaton, Illinois store, where personally observed the policies, patterns or practices  complained of herein. Additionally, Mr. Bailey was trained at Defendant’s Darien, Illinois  location, where he personally observed the policies, patterns or practices complained of herein.  Finally, Mr. Bailey was further trained at Defendant’s Downers Grove, Illinois location, where  he personally observed the policies, patterns or practices complained of herein. According to Jim  Bailey, every store’s operations were controlled by the same corporate office at all of the various  locations where he worked.     51.  Additionally, Plaintiffs LaFleur and Croy worked at Defendant’s Geneva, Illinois  location where the same policies, patterns and practices complained of herein occurred on a  regular and consistent basis.    53.  There are thousands of similarly situated current and former Hourly Associates  and Assistant Managers of Defendant who have been improperly compensated in violation of the  FLSA and applicable state wage laws, and who would benefit from the issuance of Court- Supervised Notice of the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join the present lawsuit.  Those  similarly situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily identifiable and locatable  through Defendant’s records.    54.  Defendant further has engaged in a wide-spread pattern and practice of violating  the provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs and all similarly situated Hourly  Associates and Assistant Managers in accordance with § 207 of the FLSA and the applicable  state wage laws.    55.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs, as well as all other  similarly situated employees, have suffered damages by failing to receive compensation in  accordance with § 207 of the FLSA.   56.  In addition to the amount of unpaid wages, overtime wages and benefits owed to  Plaintiffs and all similarly situated current and former Hourly Associates and Assistant  Managers, they are also entitled to recover an additional equal amount as liquidated damages  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and prejudgment interest.   58.  Defendant has not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA, rather has  knowingly engaged in the conduct alleged herein in order to reduce its payroll/wage costs and  increase its net revenues.    59.  Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated current and former Hourly Associates  and Assistant Managers, are also entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b).   60.  Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the  wrongs alleged herein, and this lawsuit for lost wages, overtime wages, back-pay, declaratory  judgment, injunctive relief, liquidated damages, and compensatory and punitive damages is their  only means of securing adequate relief.   61.  Plaintiff Croy is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from  Defendants’ unlawful conduct as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court.   62.  All allegations and claims alleged herein should be read in the alternative, to the  extent such an interpretation is necessitated by law and permitted under Federal Law, Illinois  Law and other state laws.    64.  Plaintiffs bring claims under IMWL, IWPCA and other state wage laws as an  individual and as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23. Under  Rule 23 the Class is defined as:   “all current and former Hourly Associates and Assistant Store  Managers that were not paid wages and overtime compensation at  any time from five (5) years prior to the filling of this complaint  and until a judgment is entered in this case” (the “Class” and  “Class Period,” respectively).  Excluded from the Class are Defendant’s legal representatives, officers, directors,  assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at any time during the Class period  has had, a controlling interest in Defendant; the Judge to whom this case is assigned and any  member of the Judge’s immediate family; and all persons who will submit timely and otherwise  proper request for exclusion from the Class.   65.  Numerosity: The persons in the Class identified above are geographically diverse  and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  Although the precise number of  such persons is unknown, the facts on which the calculation of that number are presently within  the sole control of Defendant. Upon information and belief, and based upon Defendant’s  representations on its website that it operates over 4,000 stores in all 48 contiguous states.  Plaintiffs estimate that there are tens-of-thousands of putative class members nationwide.    67.  Typicality: The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the Class.     68.  Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class  and have no interests that are antagonistic to that of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel  that are experienced in class actions, collective actions and specifically, in class/collective  actions involving wage and hour litigation.     69.  Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for their fair  and efficient adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour  litigation, where individual employees/plaintiffs either lack the financial resources or cannot  justify the commitment of the large financial resources necessary to vigorously prosecute  separate lawsuits in Federal court and/or State court against large corporate defendants.   70.  Defendant has acted or has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with  respect to the class as a whole.  B.  75.  Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, re-allege and incorporate by  reference all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.   76.  This claim is brought against Defendant for failure to pay wages for time worked  and failure to pay overtime for time worked beyond forty (40) hours per week in violation of the  87.  Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, re-allege and incorporate by  reference all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.   89.  At all material times set forth herein, Defendant was an “employer” within the  definition of the IMWL, 820 ILCS 105/3(c).   90.  The IMWL requires hourly employees be paid for all time worked and all  overtime, equal to one and a half times the employee’s regular rate of pay, for all hours worked  in excess of forty (40) per week.   91.   The similar laws of other states where Defendant Dollar Tree owns and operates  stores require payment for all time worked and all overtime equal to one and a half times the  employee’s regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week.    92.  During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and members of the Class were not paid for all  time worked and all overtime worked, as alleged herein.   93.  Defendant willfully, intentionally and/or knowingly required, ratified and  encouraged through reprimand, discipline and termination, Plaintiffs and the Class not being paid  for all hours worked and overtime hours worked, as alleged herein.     94.  Plaintiffs and members of the Class were regularly not compensated for all  straight time hours and overtime hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, in  violation of the IMWL and other applicable state wage laws.   95.  Defendant’s failure to comply with the IMWL, and other applicable state wage  laws, was intentional, reckless and/or willful.   97.  Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, re-allege and incorporate by  reference all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.   98.  At all material times set forth herein, Plaintiffs were “employees” within the  definition of the IWPCA, 820 ILCS 115/2.   A.  THE IMWL AND OTHER STATE WAGE LAWS CLASS  