31.  Defendants buy and sell precious metals to its customers throughout the United States and  Texas and employ regional gold buyers and marketers to perform these services.   32.  Plaintiffs and Class Members are and/or were employed as regional gold buyers and  marketers.    33.  As regional gold buyers, Plaintiffs and Class Members’ primary duties include, but are not  limited to, answering phones, opening and closing their assigned locations, cleaning stores, cash  drops, working the registers, customer service, promoting business, maintenance of the facilities of  their assigned store, and weighing and buying precious metals from customers as they came in.   34.  As marketers, Plaintiffs and Class Members perform the duty of handing out fliers to  potential customers.   36.  The commission pay method, when properly implemented, allows an employer to pay its  non-exempt employees a percentage of their sales if more than half of their job is directly related to  promoting sales and new business as opposed to paying the employees one and a half (1½ ) of full  times their regular rates of pay. However, as regional gold buyers, Plaintiffs and Class Members  spent only a small percentage of their time to promoting the business and/or looking for new  business. Further, Plaintiffs and Class Members rarely exercised discretionary powers and were not  free from supervision concerning matters of significance, such as scheduling employees or making  decisions with respect to human resources issues.   37.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class Members primary job duties at all times were those of a  non-exempt employee.   38.  As regional gold buyers and marketers, Plaintiffs and Class Members regularly worked more  than forty (40) hours per work week, but during the relevant period, Defendants paid Plaintiffs and  Class Members a base pay of $50.00 in addition to commissions. This amount of commissions  varied from week to week, and consequently, the gross amounts that the Plaintiffs and Class  Members received each week were not fixed, as the law requires.   39.  Moreover, Defendants violated the law because there was no clear and mutual understanding  between the parties that a fixed salary would compensate them for all hours worked each week  whatever the number may be. There were many weeks when Plaintiffs and Class Members' pay fell  below that applicable minimum wage rate and the compensation provided to the Plaintiffs and Class  Members was at a rate less than the applicable overtime rate for every hour worked over forty (40)   in a work week.   41.  Defendants' method of paying Plaintiffs in violation of the FLSA was willful and not based  on a good faith and reasonable belief that its conduct complied with the FLSA.  42.  Plaintiffs have actual knowledge that Class Members have also been denied overtime pay for  hours worked over forty (40) hours per workweek and have been denied pay at the federally  mandated minimum wage rate. That is, Plaintiffs worked with other employees of Defendants who  were paid pursuant to the method that fails to comply with the law.   43.  Other employees similarly situated to Plaintiffs work or have worked for Defendants, but  were not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate when those hours  exceeded forty (40) hours per workweek. Furthermore, these same employees were denied pay at the  federally mandated minimum wage rate.   44.  Although Defendants permitted and/or required the Class Members to work in excess of forty  (40) hours per workweek, Defendants have denied them full compensation for their hours worked  over forty. Defendant has also denied them full compensation at the federally mandated minimum  wage rate.   45.  The Class Members perform or have performed the same or similar work as the Plaintiffs and  regularly work or have worked in excess of forty (40) hours during a workweek. Similar to  Plaintiffs, Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime at the federally mandated wage  rate under the FLSA. As such, Class Members are similar to Plaintiffs in terms of job duties, pay  structure, and/or the denial of overtime wage.   47.  The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each Class Member does not prevent  collective treatment.   48.  All Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are entitled to overtime  compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) during a workweek and compensation for  hours worked at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.   49.  Although the exact amount of damages may vary among Class Members, the damages for the  Class Members can be easily calculated by a simple formula. The claims of all Class Members arise  from a common nucleus of facts. Liability is based on a systematic course of wrongful conduct by  the Defendants that caused harm to all Class Members.   50.  As such, the class of similarly situated Plaintiffs is properly defined as follows:  The Class Members are all of Defendants' current and former regional gold  buyer employees who were paid pursuant to the pay method during the three-year  period before the filing of this Complaint up to the present. 