(Fair Labor Standards Act Violations)   (OMFWSA Violations)   13.  Defendant operates a parcel delivery service and delivers Amazon packages to  customers in Northeast Ohio.   14.  Plaintiff White was employed by Defendant as a driver between October 2018 and  July 2019 and delivered Amazon packages in Cleveland and the surrounding areas.    15.  Other similarly situated employees were employed by Defendant as drivers.   16.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers were classified by Defendant as non- exempt employees.   17.  Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers on an hourly basis.    18.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers drove vehicles with a gross vehicle  weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds.  (Failure to pay for on-duty meal periods)   19.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers were not provided with bona fide meal  periods during which they were completely relieved from duty.   20.  Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes per day for a meal period, despite the  fact that Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers did not receive meal periods and/or performed  work during meal periods because of the substantial amount of work that they had to perform.    21.  During the time that was considered their meal period, Plaintiff and other similarly  situated drivers continued making deliveries.   22.  Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers a way to  report a missed meal period.   23.  Defendant was aware that Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers did not  receive bona fide meal periods due to the amount of work assigned to Plaintiff and other similarly  4  situated drivers.   24.  As a result of Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers for  meal periods during which they performed work, Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers were  denied significant amounts of overtime compensation.   25.  Plaintiff Jessie White estimates that he performed work during his meal periods  approximately five (5) days per week.    26.  Plaintiff worked approximately 45 to 54 hours per week on average.   27.  Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly  situated drivers for meal periods during which they performed work.  (Defendant Willfully Violated the FLSA)   28.  Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of  the FLSA.  29.  Plaintiff brings Count One of this action on his own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who have been, are being, or will be  adversely affected by Defendant’s unlawful conduct.   30.  The class which Plaintiff seeks to represent and for whom Plaintiff seeks the right  to send “opt-in” notices for purposes of the collective action, and of which Plaintiff himself is a  member, is composed of and defined as follows:    All former and current drivers employed by Peregrine Express  LLC at any time between January 24, 2017 and the present.   31.  Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential class, but upon  information and belief aver that it consists of at least 100 persons.   32.  This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  5  216(b) as to claims for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees  and costs under the FLSA.  In addition to Plaintiff, numerous current and former employees are  similarly situated with regard to their wages and claims for unpaid wages and damages.  Plaintiff  is representative of those other employees and is acting on behalf of their interests, as well as his  own, in bringing this action.   33.  These similarly-situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily  identifiable through Defendant’s business and payroll records.  These individuals may readily be  notified of this action, and allowed to opt in pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of  collectively adjudicating their claims for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated  damages, attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.  34.  Plaintiff brings Count Two of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3)  on behalf of himself and all other members of the class (“the Ohio Class”) defined as:  All former and current drivers employed by Peregrine Express  LLC at any time between January 24, 2017 and the present.   35.  The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.   Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential Ohio Class, but upon  information and belief, avers that it consists of at least 100 persons.    36.  There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not  limited to the following:  (a) whether Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation to its  employees for hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek;   (b) what amount of monetary relief will compensate Plaintiff and  other members of the class for Defendant’s violation of R.C. §§  4111.03 and 4111.10.  6   37.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of other members of the  Ohio Class.  Named Plaintiff’s claims rise out of the same uniform course of conduct by Defendant,  and are based on the same legal theories, as the claims of the other Ohio Class members.   38.  The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Ohio  Class.  His interest is not antagonistic to, but rather is in unison with, the interests of the other Ohio  Class members.  The named Plaintiff’s counsel has broad experience in handling class action  wage-and-hour litigation, and is fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio Class in this  case.   39.  The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Class predominate over  any questions affecting only individual members.  The primary questions that will determine  Defendant’s liability to the Ohio Class, listed above, are common to the class as a whole, and  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.   40.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Requiring Ohio Class members to pursue their claims  individually would entail a host of separate suits, with concomitant duplication of costs, attorneys’  fees, and demands on court resources.  Many Ohio Class members’ claims are sufficiently small  that they would be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, and risk of pursuing their claims  individually.  Certification of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will enable the issues to be  adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.   41.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    42.  Defendant’s practices and policies of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly  7  situated drivers for meal periods during which they performed work violated the FLSA, 29 CFR §  785.19.   43.  By engaging in the above-described practices and policies, Defendant willfully,  knowingly and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the FLSA.   44.  As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly  situated drivers have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant to  the FLSA.  45.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    46.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated  drivers for meal periods during which they performed work violated the OMFWSA, R.C. §  4111.14.   47.  By engaging in the above-described practices and policies, Defendant willfully,  knowingly and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the OMFWSA, R.C. § 4111.03.   48.  As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly  situated drivers have been damages in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant to  the OMFWSA. 