14. Defendants own, operate and KFC, Taco Bell, Long John Silver’s franchise restaurants among other restaurants. Upon information and belief, Defendants operate at least seventy four (74) franchised Yum! Brands restaurants in several states across the United States, including Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Please see a list of Defendants’ Yum! Brands Restaurant Locations attached as Exhibit C.  16. Defendants are and/or have been the “employer” of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), during all times relevant to this Collective Action Complaint.  17. Plaintiff and all other similarly situated persons are current or former assistant managers or assistant unit managers of Defendants’ Yum! Brands restaurants.  18. Defendants employed Plaintiff and those similarly situated and were responsible for establishing and administering pay policies and practices, including pay classifications and overtime pay rates, during all times relevant to this Collective Action Complaint.  19. Defendants have had a centralized plan, policy and practice (scheme) of establishing and administering pay practices for their employees classified as Assistant Managers or Assistant Unit Managers.  20. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff and those similarly situated are or have been “employees” of Defendants as defined by Section 203(e)(1) of the FLSA and, worked for Defendants within the territory of the United States within three (3) years preceding the filing of this lawsuit.  21. At all times material to this action, the corporate Defendants have been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined by Section 203(s)(1) of the FLSA, with annual revenue in excess of $500,000.00.  23. Defendants’ employ individuals classified as Assistant Managers or Assistant Unit Managers whose primary duties are non-managerial in nature and whose principal duties are to prepare and serve food items to customers.  24. As an assistant manager, the primary duties of Plaintiff and similarly situated putative class members were cleaning, taking orders, servicing customers, and preparing, cooking, and packaging food. Plaintiff and putative class members spent a vast majority of their work-time performing such duties.  25. During the statutory period, Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and other members of the class as salary exempt employees and as such paid Plaintiff and the class a fixed amount per week.  26. During the statutory period, Defendants directed Plaintiff and the putative class to work in excess of forty (40) hours per week, and Plaintiff and the class worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Defendants typically scheduled Plaintiff and the class to work a minimum of fifty (50) hours per week. Plaintiff regularly and routinely worked a minimum of fifty (50) hours per week.  27. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the class at a rate of one and one half time their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.  28. Defendants employ a uniform electronic time keeping system for tracking and reporting employee hours worked at each of its restaurants.  30. The net effect of Defendants’ plan, policy and practice of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees classified as Assistant Managers Assistant Unit Managers overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, during the relevant statutory limitations' period, was a scheme to save payroll costs and payroll taxes for which Defendants have enjoyed ill gained profits at the expense of Plaintiff and other members of the class.  31. Defendants are unable to bear their burden of showing that Plaintiff and the class fall within any of the FLSA overtime exemptions, including but not limited to those announced in 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.300, 541.301, 541.302, 541.303, or 541.304.  32. Upon information and belief, Defendants recently converted all of their Assistant Managers or Assistant Unit Managers to hourly non-exempt employees, and as such pay them an hourly rate for every hour they work, including time and a half (1.5) for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.  33. Although at this stage Plaintiff is unable to state the exact amount owed to her and other members of the class, she believes such information will become available during the course of discovery.  However, when an employer fails to keep complete and accurate time records, employees may establish the hours worked solely by their testimony and the burden of proof of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer. VI. 34. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if the same were fully set forth herein.  35. Plaintiff brings this collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207, and 216(b), specifically, as follows: All Assistant Managers or Assistant Unit Managers employed by Defendants within the three years preceding the filing of this action who were misclassified as exempt employees even though they primarily performed non-exempt duties. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes that the definition of the class could be further refined following discovery of Defendants’ books and records.  36. The claims under the FLSA may be pursued by those who opt-in to this case under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  37. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all other members of the class is impracticable.  While the exact number of the other members of the class is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and, can only be ascertained through applicable discovery, Plaintiff believes there are more than 200 individuals in the putative class.  39. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the class which predominate over any questions only affecting other members of the class individually and include, but are not limited to, the following:  Whether Plaintiff and other members of the class were misclassified as exempt from the FLSA;  Whether Plaintiff and other members of the class were expected and/or required to work hours without compensation;  Whether Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff and other members of the class to work hours without compensation;  Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other members of the class all applicable straight time wages for all hours worked;  Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other members of the class all overtime compensation due them for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week;  The correct statutes of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of the other members of the class;  Whether Plaintiff and other members of the class are entitled to damages, including but not limited to liquidated damages, and the measure of the damages; and,  Whether Defendants are liable for interest, attorneys’ interest, fees, and costs.  40. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as their interests are aligned with those of the other members of the class. Plaintiff has no interests adverse to the class and, Plaintiff has retained competent counsel who are experienced in collective action litigation.  42. Plaintiff and other members of the class have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable damage from the unlawful policies, practices, and procedures implemented and administered by Defendants. 43. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the class, repeat and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 42 above, as if they were fully set forth herein.  44. At all relevant times, Defendants have been and continue to be an employer engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a). Plaintiff and class members also have engaged in interstate commerce during all relevant times to this Collective Action Complaint.  45. At all relevant times, Defendants employed (and/or continues to employ) Plaintiff and each of the other members of the class within the meaning of the FLSA.  46. At all times relevant, Defendants had a uniform plan, policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay the federal applicable overtime compensation to Plaintiff and other members of the class for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.  48. At all times relevant, Defendants did not have a good faith basis for its failure to pay the federal applicable overtime compensation to Plaintiff and other members of the class for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.  49. As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to pay Plaintiff and other members of the class the applicable federal applicable overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) per week during the relevant statutory limitations' period, they have violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.  50. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).  51. Due to Defendants’ willful FLSA violations and, and their lack of good faith, in its failure to pay Plaintiff and the other members of the class the federal applicable overtime compensation  for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week during the relevant statutory limitations'  period, they are entitled to recover from Defendants compensation for unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements relating to this action for the three-year statutory period under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). VIOLATION OF THE FLSA IN CONNECTION WITH OVERTIME COMPENSATION 