(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO WAGE ACT)   (UNPAID OVERTIME PURSUANT TO THE OHIO WAGE LAW)   (VIOLATION OF OHIO'S PROMPT PAY ACT)   21.  Plaintiffs restates the preceding paragraphs as if fully realleged herein.   22.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was employed as a service technician from  approximately April 2015 until October 10, 2017 at Camping World of Columbus.   23.  At all times relevant, he was paid on an hourly basis in various amounts believed  to begin in the approximate amount of $16 per hour, increase to $21.33 per hour, and further  increase to $23.50 until the end of his employment.   25.  Plaintiff neither primarily performed managerial duties nor supervised two or more  employees. Plaintiff could not hire, fire, or discipline employees.   26.  Plaintiff’s primary job duties did not consist of the exercise of discretion and  independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.   27.  Thus, at all times relevant, Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt hourly service  technician entitled to overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in any workweek.    28.  During the past three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff and  other similarly situated service technicians regularly worked over (40) hours per week.   29.  During all times relevant, Plaintiff and other similarly situated service technicians  were not paid one and one-half times their regular rates of pay (“overtime rate”) for all hours  worked in excess of forty (40) resulting in unpaid overtime wages and other wages owed to  Plaintiff for numerous unlawful reasons.   30.  First, Defendants maintained a companywide policy or practice wherein they only  paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated service technicians were paid only their regular hourly  rate of pay and not their overtime rate for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek even  though they were non-exempt employees entitled to overtime compensation.    31.  Second, Defendants maintained a companywide policy or practice wherein they  failed to fully pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated service technicians all amounts owed  because they did not compensate their service technicians for all of the compensable hours worked,  resulting in unpaid overtime wages.   33.  During the three years preceding the filing of this action, Defendants applied the  same pay practices and policies to all hourly, non-exempt service technicians, including Plaintiff.   34.  During the previous three years preceding this Complaint, Named Plaintiff and  other similarly situated service technicians were not paid for all of their compensable hours worked  due to Defendants’ FLSA-violating policies or practices.    35.  Defendants knew or should have been aware that Plaintiff and other similarly  situated service technicians worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek, but willfully  elected not to compensate them for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) during the three years  preceding the filing of this Complaint.   36.  Defendants’ joint failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated service  technicians resulted in unpaid wages, including overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and  attorneys’ fees.  38.  Examples of employees that may be members of the §216(b) Class include, but  may not be limited to service technicians or equivalent positions primarily performing similar  general labor job duties for Defendants.   39.  This FLSA claim is brought as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  §216(b) as to claims for overtime compensation, compensation withheld in violation of the FLSA,  liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under the FLSA. In addition to Named Plaintiff, numerous  putative §216(b) Class Members have been denied proper overtime wages due to Defendants’  company-wide payroll policies and practices. Named Plaintiff is representative of those other  similarly situated employees and is acting on behalf of his interests as well as their own in bringing  this action.   40.  The identity of the putative §216(b) Class Members are known to Defendants and  are readily identifiable through Defendants’ payroll records. These individuals may readily be  notified of this action, and allowed to opt into it pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), for the purpose of  collectively adjudicating their claims for overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages,  attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA.   41.  The net effect of Defendants’ policies and practices is that Defendants willfully  failed to pay overtime wages and maintain proper recordkeeping to save payroll costs.  Thus,  Defendants enjoyed substantial ill-gained profits at the expense of the Named Plaintiff and the  §216(b) Class Members.  V.  42.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   44.  During relevant times, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not exempt from  the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.   45.  Plaintiff and those similarly situated have suffered damages and continue to suffer  damages as a result of Defendants’ acts or omissions as described herein.  46.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   47.  This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiff on behalf  of himself and the §216(b) Class.   48.  During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendants jointly  employed the Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members.   49.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members were paid on an hourly basis when  working in non-exempt positions.   50.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours in a  workweek.   51.  The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for every hour worked  in a workweek.  See 29 U.S.C. § 206(b).   53.  Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members were not exempt from receiving FLSA  overtime benefits because, inter alia, she was not “executive,” “administrative,” or “professional”  employees, as those terms are defined under the FLSA.  See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, et seq.   54.  Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members were not exempt from receiving FLSA  overtime benefits because, inter alia, she was not a “learned professional” employee, as that term  is defined under the FLSA.  See 29 CFR § 541.301.   55.  Named Plaintiff and the § 216(b) Class Members routinely worked in excess of  forty hours per week during the three years preceding the filing date of this lawsuit.   56.  Named Plaintiff and the § 216(b) Class Members should have been paid the  overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek.   57.  Defendants violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiff and the §216(b)  Class Members by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at time-and-one-half times their regular  rates of pay for each hour worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek for the reasons set forth  above.   58.  Defendants knew or should have known that Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class  Members regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.   59.  Accordingly, Defendants knew or should have known of the overtime payment  requirements of the FLSA. Despite such knowledge, Defendants willfully withheld and failed to  pay the overtime compensation to which Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members are  entitled.   61.  The exact total amount of compensation, including overtime compensation, that  Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members is  unknown at this time, as many of the records necessary to make such precise calculations are in  the possession of Defendants or were not kept by Defendants.   62.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Named Plaintiff Named  Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages in an  amount not presently ascertainable.  In addition, Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members  seek liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, as result of  Defendants’ willful failure and refusal to pay overtime wages in violations of Sections 6 and 7 of  the Act (29 U.S.C. §§206-207).  63.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   64.  This claim is brought under Ohio Law.    65.  Ohio Law requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not less than  one and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty  (40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the exemptions of  section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.”  See O.R.C. § 4111.03(A); see  also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   66.  The Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated to the Named Plaintiff from Ohio  worked in excess of the maximum weekly hours permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03, but were not  paid one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.   68.  Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were not exempt from the  wage protections of Ohio Law.   69.  Defendants’ repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to the Named  Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were violations of R.C. §4111.03, and as such,  Defendants acted willfully.    70.  For Defendants’ violations of R.C. §4111.03, by which the Named Plaintiff and  those similarly situated Ohioans have suffered and continue to suffer damages; the Named Plaintiff  and those similarly situated Ohioans seek unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated  damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available.   71.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   72.  During relevant times, Defendants were entities covered by the OPPA and the  Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans have been employed by Defendants within  the meaning of the OPPA.   74.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were  not paid all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times his regular rate within thirty  (30) days of performing the work. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(B).   75.  The Named Plaintiff’s and those similarly situated Ohioans' unpaid wages remain  unpaid for more than thirty (30) days beyond his regularly scheduled payday.   76.  Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans have been harmed and  continue to be harmed by such unpaid wages.   77.  In violating the OPPA, Defendants acted willfully, without a good faith basis and  with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.  78.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   79.  The Ohio Wage Act requires employers to maintain and preserve payroll or  other records containing, among other things, the hours worked each workday and the total  hours worked each workweek. See O.R.C. § 4111.08 and Ohio Rev. Code §§4111.14(G) &  (H). See also, 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2 et seq.   80.  During times material to this complaint, Defendants were covered employers, and  jointly and severally required to comply with the Ohio Wage Act’s mandates.   81.  Named Plaintiff and similarly situated Ohioans were covered employees entitled to  the protection of the Ohio Wage Act.   83.  In violating the Ohio Wage Act, Defendants jointly acted willfully and with  reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio Wage Act provisions.  A. 216(b) Collective Action for Unpaid Overtime and Other Wages.   SITUATED  