(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (R.C. § 4113.5 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO  PROMPT PAY ACT)   (R.C. § 4111.03 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   23.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   24.  During his employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff and other similarly  situated employees were not fully and properly paid for all of their compensable hours worked  because Defendants did not properly calculate their regular rate of pay for the purposes of meeting  the minimum requirements set forth in the FLSA, resulting in unpaid overtime wages.   25.  Defendants pay Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees an hourly  wage for hours worked (hereinafter “Base Hourly Wage”).   27.  During the last three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Named Plaintiff  and other similarly situated employees regularly received their Base Hourly Wage and Additional  Remuneration as described above in numerous workweeks.   28.  When Defendants paid Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees both  their Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration, Defendants failed to properly calculate  their employees’ regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime pay because Defendants did not  include the Additional Remuneration in its regular rate calculations.    29.  Consequently, Defendants failed to properly compensate Named Plaintiff and other  similarly situated employees the overtime wages they were due in accordance with the minimum  requirements of the FLSA.   30.  Defendants instead paid Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees  overtime compensation at one and one-half times their Base Hourly Wage, and not one and one- half times their regular rate of pay, as that phrase is defined under the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. §  207(e).   31.  Upon information and belief, Defendants, at all times relevant hereto, was fully  aware of the fact that it was legally required to comply with the wage and overtime payment laws  of the United States and of the State of Ohio.   32.  During relevant times, Defendants had knowledge of and acted willfully regarding  its conduct described herein.   34.  For the three years preceding this filing, Defendants applied the same pay practices  and policies to all hourly, non-exempt employees, including Named Plaintiff.   35.  Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been fully and  lawfully compensated for all of their compensable hours worked due to the aforementioned  policies and practices of not paying employees the correct overtime rate for all hours worked over  40 in a workweek.   36.  Defendants knew or should have been aware that Named Plaintiff and other  similarly situated employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek and were entitled  to be paid an overtime rate based on their regular rate of pay, as that phrase is defined under the  FLSA, but they willfully elected not to fully compensate their employees during all times relevant.  IV.  37.  Named Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a  representative action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees of the opt-in  class, consisting of:  All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendants, who  received a Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration during any  workweek that they worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three  years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and continuing through the  date of final disposition of this case (the “§216(b) Collective Class” or the  “§216(b) Collective Class Members”).   38.  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 withheld in violation of the FLSA, liquidated  damages, and attorneys' fees.    40.  The identity of the putative §216(b) Collective 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 compensation, liquidated  damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA.   41.  The net effect of Defendants’ policies and practices is that Defendants willfully  failed to fully and properly pay Named Plaintiff and §216(b) Collective Class Members overtime  wages. Thus, Defendants enjoyed substantial profits at the expense of the Named Plaintiff and  §216(b) Collective Class Members.  B. Fed.R.Civ. P. 23 Class Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages.   43.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and those Ohio Rule 23 Class Members  worked more than forty (40) hours per workweek, but were not correctly compensated at a rate of  at least one and one-half times their correct regular rate of pay, as that phrase is defined under the  FLSA, for all hours worked in excess of 40 because of Defendants’ policy and practice of not fully  compensating their employees at the proper overtime rate during workweeks when they received  additional forms of remuneration as described herein.    44.  The Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.   45.  Named Plaintiff is a member of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and his claims for unpaid  wages are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   46.  Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Ohio Rule 23 Class and  the interests of all members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   47.  Named Plaintiff has no interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict with those  interests of the Ohio Rule 23 Class that he has undertaken to represent.   48.  Named Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced class action counsel who  can ably represent the interests of the entire Ohio Rule 23 Class.   49.  Questions of law and fact are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   50.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because individual  actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish  incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants with respect to their non-exempt employees.   52.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of  law and facts common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual  members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   53.  Questions of law and fact that are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class include, but  are not limited to: (a) whether Defendants violated the Ohio Wage Act by failing to pay the Ohio  Rule 23 Class Members their correct overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours  per week as a result of Defendants’ failure to properly calculate the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’  regular rate of pay when they received additional forms of remuneration; (b) whether Defendants’  violations of the Ohio Wage Act were knowing and willful; (c) what amount of unpaid and/or  withheld overtime compensation is due to the Named Plaintiff and other members of the Ohio Rule  23 Class on account of Defendants’ violations of the Ohio Wage Act; and (d) what amount of  prejudgment interest is due to Ohio Rule 23 Class members on the overtime or other compensation  which was withheld or not paid to them.   55.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   56.  This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiff on behalf  of himself and the §216(b) Collective Class Members.   57.  During the relevant time period preceding this Complaint, Defendants employed  the Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members.   58.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members were paid on an hourly  basis when working in non-exempt positions.   59.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members worked in excess of 40  hours in numerous workweeks during their employment.   60.  The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for every hour worked  in a workweek.  See 29 U.S.C. § 206(b).   61.  The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees receive overtime compensation of  their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. See 29 U.S.C.  § 207(a)(1).   63.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members were not exempt from  receiving FLSA overtime compensation.   64.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members worked in excess of  forty hours per week during all times relevant.   65.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members should have been paid  the correct overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek during the  three years prior to the filing of this Complaint.   66.  Defendants violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiff and the §216(b)  Collective Class Members by, inter alia, failing to fully compensate them at time-and-one-half  times their regular rates of pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in workweeks because  Defendants did not properly calculate its employees’ overtime rate when they received Additional  Remuneration as described herein.   67.  Defendants knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of  the FLSA. Defendants willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime compensation to which  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members are entitled.   68.  The exact total amount of overtime compensation that Defendants failed to pay the  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Class Members is unknown at this time, as many of  the records necessary to make such precise calculations are in Defendants’ possession.   70.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   71.  This claim is brought under Ohio law, which incorporates the FLSA without  limitation.   72.  The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by  Defendants and Defendants are employers covered by the overtime requirements under Ohio law.   73.  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 R.C. § 4111.03(A); see also 29  U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   74.  The Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class worked in excess of the maximum  weekly hours permitted under R.C. § 4111.03 but were not correctly paid their overtime rate for  all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in workweeks that they received additional forms of  remuneration as described herein.   75.  Defendants’ company-wide corporate policy and/or practice of not properly paying  their hourly, non-exempt employees the correct overtime rate for each hour worked over forty (40)  hours in workweeks that employees also received additional forms of remuneration as described  herein resulted in unpaid overtime wages for the Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class.   76.  Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were not exempt from the  wage protections of Ohio law.   78.  The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not exempt from the wage  protections of Ohio law.    79.  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.   80.  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.  81.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   82.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have  been employed by Defendants.   83.  During relevant times, Defendants were entities covered by the OPPA and the  Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by Defendants within  the meaning of the OPPA.   85.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not paid  all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay as described  herein within thirty (30) days of performing the work. See R.C. § 4113.15(B).   86.  The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ unpaid wages remain  unpaid for more than thirty (30) days beyond their regularly scheduled payday.   87.  The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been harmed and  continue to be harmed by such unpaid wages.   88.  In violating the OPPA, Defendants acted willfully, without a good faith basis, and  with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.  VI.  A. 216(b) Collective Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages.  