(Fair Labor Standards Act-Minimum Wage Claim)  (Individual and Collective Claim)   (Fair Labor Standards Act–Failure to Pay Overtime Wages)  (Individual and Collective Action   11.� At all times, relevant herein, Defendants employed Plaintiff and numerous other  employees to work on their behalf in providing labor for their financial benefit.   12.� Plaintiff Knecht has been employed by Defendants as a server from approximately  October of 2012 until the present.   13.� Plaintiff has an employment agreement with Defendants, whereby Plaintiff is paid an  hourly rate plus tips for all hours worked.   14.� Defendants paid Mr. Knecht, as well as other similarly situated servers, an hourly  wage less than the statutory minimum wage by taking the “Tip Credit” under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.  § 203(m).     15.� Defendants paid Plaintiff $2.75 per hour.   16.� Defendants violated the tip credit notice requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), because  they did not inform Plaintiff, as well as other similarly situated servers, that they intend to treat tips  as satisfying part of their minimum wage obligation.    17.� Defendants also did not notify Plaintiff, as well as other similarly situated servers,  regarding the provisions of their tip policy and the amount of the tip credit that it was taking.      18.� Defendants failed to inform the Plaintiff, as well as other similarly situated servers,  regarding the amount of tip pool contributions they would be required to make either before or after  they were hired.   20.� The Defendants’ mandatory tip pool consists of front severs, back servers, server  assistants, hostesses, bartenders and food runners.    21.� The front severs primary duties are to ensure that Charleston Grill’s product and  service standards are consistent with Leading Quality Assurance. (LQA). The Leading Hotels of the  World, Ltd. through LQA, sets standards for the world's most prestigious hospitality organizations.     22.� The front-severs, initially greet the customers, obtain their drink order, described the  menu, and makes wine suggestions.   23.� The back-server acts as a liaison between the Front Server and the guest.  They are  responsible for resetting the table, putting the appropriate silverware on the table for each course.   The back-server is also responsible for the dessert presentation as well serving the dessert and after  dinner drinks.   24.� Plaintiffs works primarily as a front server because he is experienced, and  knowledgeable in LQA standards.  Occasionally, Plaintiff also works as back server.   25.� The server assistants’ primary responsibility is to fill water glasses, clear dirty plates,  and bring food to the table.   26.� Server assistants are paid less than minimum wage and sometimes work shifts  without being paid any hourly wage.    28.� The food runner position at the Charleston Grill varies from the typical food runner  position in other restaurants.   In most restaurants, food runners, as the name suggests, assist servers  in running food from the kitchen to customers seated at the tables.   29.� However, at Charleston Grill, the food runners do not have any direct interaction with  the guests.     30.� In fact, the food runners are specifically instructed not to bring plates to the table or  approach customers because they do not have the proper training.   31.� The food runners work primarily in the kitchen expediting food according to the  cook’s instructions.   32.� Food runners require no training before they are scheduled to work.   However, front  severs, back servers, server assistants, hostesses, and bartenders are required to complete training.  In addition to training, they are required to pass a written or verbal exam given by the General  Manager or Dining Room Manager.   33.� As a result of the Defendants’ mandatory tip pool of requiring Plaintiff to share their  tips with the food runners,  the Defendants are violating the rights of the Plaintiff and numerous  similarly situated employees by failing to pay them the federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25  an hour.   34.� The food runners are not employees who “customarily and regularly” receive tips.   They take plates to and from food stations and are rarely visible to the guests.   36.� The Defendants regularly hire food runners from a staffing agency.  The food runners  hired through a staffing agency, are paid on or above the Federal Minimum wage of $7.25 an hour  and are not included in the tip pool.     37.� The Plaintiff, as well as, similarly situated employees, do not redistribute their tips to  food runners when they are hired by a staffing agency.    38.�  However, food runners hired directly by the Defendants, and not through the staffing  agency; were paid below the Federal Minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and were included in the tool  pool.    39.� Food runners are only included in the mandatory tip pool when they are hired by the  Defendants and not from a staffing agency.   40.� In addition to maintaining a policy that invalidates the tip credit scheme, Defendants  also miscalculate the overtime rate for all servers who worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.     41.�  By law, when tipped employees paid pursuant to a tip credit scheme work overtime,  the employer is to calculate the employees’ overtime rate at one-and-a-half (1.5) times minimum  wage not the lower direct wage payment of the tip credit scheme. 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).    42.� Plaintiff and similarly situated employees occasionally worked over forty (40) hours  in a workweek without receiving proper overtime compensation.   43.� Plaintiff is paid $4.12 and hour when he works over forty hours.   44.� At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees are non-exempt employees for purposes of the overtime compensation provisions of the  46.� Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs as if  repeated here verbatim.   47.� At all times, pertinent to this Complaint, Defendants engaged in interstate commerce  or in the production of goods for commerce as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s).   48.� At all times, relevant to this Complaint, Defendants’ annual gross volume of sales  made or business done was not less than Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100 dollars ($500,000.00).    49.� Alternatively, Plaintiff works in interstate commerce so as to fall within the protection  of the FLSA. The business of Defendants was and is an enterprise engaged in commerce as defined  by 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1) and, as such, Defendants are subject to, and covered by, the FLSA.   50.� The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206, requires employers to pay its nonexempt employees a  minimum wage of Seven and 25/100 dollars ($7.25) an hour.   51.� The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), provides an exception allowing certain employers  to take a “Tip Credit” and pay less than the statutory minimum wage to tipped employees, on the  condition that any pooling, or sharing, of tips is shared only with other employees who customarily  and regularly receive tips.   52.� Plaintiff was required by Defendants to pool, or share, his tips with employees, who  are not employees who customarily and regularly receive tips, therefore, the tip pool is invalidated.   53.� When the tip pool is invalidated, the employer can no longer enjoy the benefits of  the Tip Credit provision, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).     55.� Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs as if  repeated here verbatim.   56.� Pursuant to the terms of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, an employer must pay a  nonexempt employee time and a half for all hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek.   57.� By law, when tipped employees paid pursuant to a tip credit scheme work overtime,  the employer is to calculate the employees’ overtime rate at one-and-a-half (1.5) times minimum  wage not the lower direct wage payment of the tip credit scheme. 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).    58.� Plaintiff and similarly situated employees occasionally worked over forty (40) hours  in a workweek without receiving proper overtime compensation.    59.� Defendants have violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, in reckless disregard of the  rights of Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants the following damages:  actual damages; liquidated damages of an equal amount; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs  and disbursements of this action.  9.� At all times, relevant herein, Defendants own and operate the Charleston Grill by  Belmond, (Charleston Grill) an up-scale restaurant serving “award winning Southern Cuisine”  located within the Belmond Charleston Place Hotel at 224 King Street, Charleston, South Carolina  29401.  Belmond consist of “a global collection of 49 iconic hotels, trains and river cruises in 24  countries.” https://www.belmond.com/about.  