(Collective Action Claim for Violation of the FLSA)   (Individual Claim for Violation of the FLSA)   1.5x their regular wages for all hours worked over 40 in a week, unless an employee  meets certain exemption requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 213 and all accompanying  Department of Labor regulations.   10.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this  Complaint as if fully set forth in this section.    11.  Penick is a principal, director, officer, and/or owner of Acorn.     13.  Penick, in his role as an operating employer of Acorn, had the power to hire  and fire Plaintiff, often supervised Plaintiff’s work and determined his work schedule, and  made decisions regarding Plaintiff’s pay, or lack thereof.   14.  Penick, at relevant times, exercised supervisory authority over Plaintiff in  relation to his work schedules, pay policy and the day-to-day job duties that Plaintiff’s jobs  entailed.   15.  Within the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendants  have continuously employed at least four employees.   16.  Defendants employ two or more individuals who engage in interstate  commerce or business transactions, or who produce goods to be transported or sold in  interstate commerce, or who handle, sell, or otherwise work with goods or materials that  have been moved in or produced for interstate commerce, such as bulldozers and other  machinery.   17.   Defendants’ annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not  less than $500,000.00 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are separately  stated) in each of the three years preceding the filing of the Original Complaint.   18.  Defendants are employers within the meaning of the FLSA and have been,  at all times relevant herein, Plaintiff’s employer.    19.  Acorn is a full-service forestry company that provides services such as  heavy mechanical site prep, site prep burning, and other services.   21.  Defendants employed Plaintiff as a heavy mechanical operator from June  of 2020 until November of 2020.    22.  Defendants classified Plaintiff as an hourly employee, non-exempt from the  overtime requirements of the FLSA.    23.  Defendants employ heavy mechanical operators and other hourly  employees, such as mechanics, bulldozer hands, and burn crew hands (hereinafter  collectively “Forestry Workers”) in order to perform the forestry services that they offer.   24.  Defendants also classified other Forestry Workers as hourly employees,  non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.    25.  Defendants directly hired Plaintiff and other Forestry Workers, controlled  their work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment  conditions, and kept at least some records regarding their employment.   26.  Plaintiff and other Forestry Workers regularly worked in excess of forty  hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendants.   27.  Defendants paid Plaintiff and other Forestry Workers 1.25x their base hourly  rate for the hours they worked over 40 hours and up to 60 hours in a workweek.   28.  Defendants paid Plaintiff and other Forestry Workers 1.5x their base hourly  rate for the hours they worked over 60 hours in a workweek.   29.  As a result, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other Forestry Workers   30.  Additionally, Defendants imposed paycheck fines on Plaintiff and other  Forestry Workers for tardiness, absences, and failure to properly record information in the  time-keeping app which Defendants required Plaintiff and other Forestry Workers to use.   31.  Defendants deducted set amounts ranging from approximately from Plaintiff  and other Forestry Workers’ pay for these infractions.   32.  Defendants’ deductions for Forestry Workers’ tardiness ranged from  approximately $50.00 to $100.00, deductions for Forestry Workers’ absences ranged  from approximately $100.00 to $400.00 and deductions for misusing the app started at  around $5.00.   33.  These pay deductions resulted in additional violations of the overtime  provisions of the FLSA.   34.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ pay practices were the same for  all Forestry Workers.    35.  Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid  Plaintiff and other Forestry Workers violated the FLSA.   36.  At all relevant times herein, Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and other  Forestry Workers of proper overtime compensation for all of the hours worked over forty  per week.   37.  Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid  Plaintiff and other Forestry Workers violated the FLSA.  V.  39.  Plaintiff brings this claim for relief for violation of the FLSA as a collective  action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all persons  similarly situated who were, are, or will be employed by Defendants within the applicable  statute of limitations period, who are entitled to payment of the following types of  damages:  A.  Overtime premiums for all hours worked over forty hours in any week;  B.  Liquidated damages; and  C.  Attorney’s fees and costs.   40.  Plaintiff proposes the following class under the FLSA:  All Forestry Workers within the past three years.   41.  In conformity with the requirements of FLSA Section 16(b), Plaintiff has filed  or will soon file a written Consent to Join this lawsuit.   42.  The relevant time period dates back three years from the date on which  Plaintiff’s Original Complaint—Collective Action was filed herein and continues forward  through the date of judgment pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255(a), except as set forth herein  below.   44.  Plaintiff is unable to state the exact number of the collective but believes  that the collective exceeds fifty persons.   45.  Defendants can readily identify the members of the collective, who are a  certain portion of the current and former employees of Defendants.   46.  The names and physical and mailing addresses of the probable FLSA  collective action plaintiffs are available from Defendants.   47.  The email addresses of many of the probable FLSA collective action  plaintiffs are available from Defendants.  VI.  48.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully set forth herein.   49.  Plaintiff asserts this claim for damages and declaratory relief pursuant to  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.    50.  At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continue to be, an  enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.    51.  29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 require any enterprise engaged in commerce to  pay a minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 each week and to pay 1.5x their regular  wages for all hours worked over 40, unless an employee meets certain exemption  requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 213 and all accompanying DOL regulations.    52.  Defendants classified Plaintiff as non-exempt from the requirements of the  59.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully set forth herein.   61.  At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continue to be, an  enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.    62.  29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 require any enterprise engaged in commerce to  pay all employees a minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 each week and to pay   63.  Defendants classified Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as  non-exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.    64.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees 1.5x their  regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.   65.  Defendants knew or should have known that its actions violated the FLSA.   66.  Defendants’ conduct and practices, as described above, were willful.   67.  By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendants are liable to  Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees for monetary damages, liquidated damages  and costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees provided by the FLSA for all violations  which occurred beginning at least three years preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s initial  complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling.    69.  Alternatively, should the Court find that Defendants acted in good faith in  failing to pay Plaintiff and the collective members as provided by the FLSA, they are  entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate. 