1.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety.   1.5 times their regular rate of pay for each hour that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a  workweek.    12.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.   13.  Named Plaintiff brings this action for violations 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  presently and formerly employed by Defendant Herr as Route Sales Representatives in non- exempt positions subject to Defendants’ unlawful pay practices and policies described herein and  who worked for Defendants at any point in the three years preceding the date the instant action  was initiated (the members of this putative class are  referred to as “Class Plaintiffs”).   14.  Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs are similarly situated, have substantially  similar non-managerial job duties, have substantially similar pay provisions, and are all subject  to Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices as described herein.   16.  Similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, are readily identifiable by  Defendants, and can be located through Defendants’ records.    17.  Therefore, Named Plaintiff should be permitted to bring this action as a collective  action for and on behalf of himself and those employees similarly situated, pursuant to the “opt- in” provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   18.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.   19.  Named Plaintiff worked for Defendants from on or about October 4, 2005 until  December 17, 2012.   2.  Named Plaintiff brings his claims asserting violations of the Pennsylvania Wage  Laws as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of  themselves and on behalf of all persons presently and formerly employed by Defendants as  Route Sales Representatives and/or in similar positions with similar non-exempt duties, and who  were subject to Defendants’ unlawful pay practices and policies at any point in the three years  preceding the date the instant action was initiated (the members of this putative class are a  subclass of Class Plaintiffs and are collectively referred to as “Pennsylvania Plaintiffs”).   20.  Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs worked/work for Defendants as Route Sales  Representatives.   21.  Named Plaintiff’s primary duties were driving a delivery truck along established  routes and delivering and stocking products at franchise, local chain, and independent retailers.    22.  Class Plaintiffs’ primary duties are/were driving a delivery truck along established  routes and delivering and stocking products at franchise, local chain, and independent retailers.   23.  All products that are sold in Pennsylvania by Defendant Herr are manufactured at  in Pennsylvania.     24.  All products delivered by Named Plaintiff were made in Pennsylvania.   25.  All products delivered by Pennsylvania Plaintiffs are/were made in Pennsylvania.   26.  Named Plaintiff drove an 8,000 pound step van when delivering Defendants’  products to retailers.   27.  Class Plaintiffs drove/drive an 8,000 pound step van when delivering Defendants’  products to retailers.   28.  Defendants compensated Named Plaintiff by paying him a base salary of $500  and a commission on proceeds that exceeded a base amount generated from sales to retailers  along his delivery route.   3.  The class is so numerous that the joinder of all class members is impracticable.   Named Plaintiff does not know the exact size of the class, as such information is in the exclusive  control of Defendants; however, on information and belief, the number of potential class  members is estimated to be at least forty (40) employees.   30.  Defendants compensate/compensated Class Plaintiffs by paying them a base  salary and a commission on proceeds that exceeded/exceed a base amount generated from sales  to retailers along their delivery routes.     31.  Defendants do/did not pay Class Plaintiffs any additional compensation for hours  worked beyond 40 per workweek.   32.  Named Plaintiff regularly worked 50 or more hours per week.   33.  Class Plaintiffs regularly work/worked 50 or more hours per week.   34.  Prior sales experience was not a prerequisite of Named Plaintiff’s employment  with Defendant Herr.   35.  Prior sales experience was not a prerequisite of Class Plaintiffs’ employment with  Defendant Herr.   36.  Upon being hired, Named Plaintiff underwent less than a week’s worth of training  which consisted of learning how to operate his step van and the hand-held computer used to  process orders.   37.  Upon being hired, Class Plaintiffs underwent less than a week’s worth of training  which consisted of learning how to operate their step vans and the hand-held computers used to  process orders.   38.  At all times relevant, the amount of sales to a retailer along Named Plaintiff’s  delivery route was mainly determined by the volume of the retailer’s sales to customers since  Named Plaintiff’s last delivery.   4.  Named Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the putative class members,  because Named Plaintiff, like all Pennsylvania Plaintiffs, was subject to the same unlawful wage  policies and practices of Defendants.   40.  Named Plaintiff did not have the authority to hire or fire employees of  Defendants.   41.  Class Plaintiffs do/did not have the authority to hire or fire employees of  Defendants.   42.  Named Plaintiff did not have the authority to schedule employees of Defendants.   43.  Class Plaintiffs do/did not have the authority to schedule employees of  Defendants.   44.  Named Plaintiff did not have the authority to make discretionary decisions  regarding matters of financial significance of Defendants.   45.  Class Plaintiffs do/did not have the authority to make discretionary decisions  regarding matters of financial significance of Defendants.   46.  Accordingly, Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs are/were, within the meaning of  the FLSA, non-exempt hourly employees of Defendants.   47.  Defendants failed to pay Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs at the rate of at least   48.  Moreover, Defendants failed to implement a system to track the number of hours  worked each workweek by Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs.   49.  As a result of Defendants’ aforesaid illegal actions, Named Plaintiff and Class  Plaintiffs have suffered damages.  51.  At all times relevant herein, Defendants were and continue to be “employers”  within the meaning of the FLSA.   52.  At all times relevant herein, Defendants were and are responsible for paying  wages to Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs.   53.  At all times relevant herein, Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were and are  employed with Defendants as “employees” within the meaning of the FLSA.   54.  Under the FLSA, an employer must pay an employee at least one and one half  times his or her regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty hours per workweek.   55.  Defendants’ violations of the FLSA include, but are not limited to, failing to pay  Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per  workweek.   56.  Defendants’ conduct in failing to pay Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs  properly was and is willful and was and is not based upon any reasonable interpretation of the  law.   57.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs  have suffered damages as set forth herein.  58.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.   59.  At all times relevant herein, Defendants have and continue to be employers within  the meaning of the Pennsylvania Wage Laws.     6.  Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the  class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting  the class as a whole insofar as Defendants have applied consistent unlawful wage policies to the  entire class and have refused to end these policies.     61.  At all times relevant herein, Named Plaintiff and Pennsylvania Plaintiffs were  employed with Defendants as an “employees” within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Wage  Laws.     62.  Defendants’ conduct in failing to pay Named Plaintiff and Pennsylvania Plaintiffs  overtime compensation for all hours worked beyond 40 per workweek violated the Pennsylvania  Wage Laws.   63.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Named Plaintiff and Pennsylvania  Plaintiffs have suffered damages as set forth herein.  64.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.   65.  Defendants conduct in failing to pay Named Plaintiff and Pennsylvania Plaintiffs  all owed wages violated the Pennsylvania Wage Laws.   7.  No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action  that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.  The class will be easily identifiable from  Defendants’ records.   8.  A class action provides a fair and efficient method for adjudication of this  controversy.  Such treatment will allow all similarly situated individuals to prosecute their  common claims in a single forum simultaneously.  Prosecution of separate actions by individual  members of the putative class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with  respect to individual members of the class that would establish incompatible standards of  conduct for Defendants.  Furthermore, the amount at stake for individual putative class members  may not be great enough to enable all of the individual putative class members to maintain  separate actions against Defendants.   Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)  (Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation)  (Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs v. Defendants)   Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act  (Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation)  (Named Plaintiff and Pennsylvania Plaintiffs v. Defendants)   Pennsylvania Wage Payment And Collection Law  (Failure to All Wages Due)  (Named Plaintiff and Pennsylvania Plaintiffs v. Defendants)  