(FLSA Overtime Violations)   (Ohio Class)   (Ohio Overtime Violations)   10.  Defendant’s hourly employees included Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class.   11.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an enterprise within the meaning of 29  U.S.C. § 203(r), and an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for  commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).  3  Hourly Employees’ Compensation   12.  Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class are current or former hourly employees  of Defendant.   13.  Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class frequently worked more than forty (40)  hours in a single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA.    14.  Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins and the Ohio Class were not paid all of the overtime  compensation they earned.   15.  Pursuant to Defendant’s uniform companywide policy, Defendant impermissibly  docks its employees’ pay.   16.  Pursuant to Defendant’s uniform companywide policy, Defendant rounds its  employees’ clock-in time in a manner in which an employee always loses credit for time actually  worked.   17.  For example, on September 11, 2017, Plaintiff worked from 6:57 A.M. until 3:44  P.M. But, rather than rounding to the nearest quarter hour, Defendant rounded Plaintiff’s clock- in time to 7:00 A.M. and rounded her clock-out time down to 3:30 P.M., which resulted in  Plaintiff being docked 17 minutes of pay.    18.  Accordingly, on August 24, 2016, although Plaintiff worked 8 hours and 17  minutes (excluding a 30-minute lunch break), she was only paid for 8 hours of work. This  resulted in Plaintiff being paid for 17 minutes less than she actually worked.   19.  This impermissible docking and rounding occurred daily.   20.  Defendant’s practice of improperly rounding time always in its favor, which  resulted in its employees always losing time worked, results and has resulted in Defendant’s  employees, including Plaintiff, being underpaid for overtime hours worked on a daily basis. This,  4  in turn, results and has resulted in Defendant’s employees, including Plaintiff, being underpaid  overtime hours worked on a weekly basis.    21.  Plaintiff, and each Opt-In and the members of the Ohio Class have each worked a  substantial number of uncompensated hours during the three-year period immediately preceding  the filing of this Complaint, which has resulted in significant unpaid overtime.    22.  Plaintiff, Opt-Ins, and members of the Ohio Class were full time employees  regularly scheduled to work 40 hours a week or more. Thus, by failing to pay Plaintiff, members  of the Ohio Class, and the Opt-Ins for work performed before and after their scheduled shift,  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, members of the Ohio Class, and the Opt-Ins for all of their  overtime in nearly every week in which they worked.  23.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    24.  Plaintiff brings this case as an FLSA “collective action” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), which provides that “[a]n action to recover the liability” prescribed by the FLSA “may  be maintained against any employer … by any one or more employees for and in behalf of  himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.”   25.  The Opt-Ins who are “similarly situated” to Plaintiff with respect to Defendant’s  FLSA violations consist of:  All present and former hourly employees of Defendant during the  period three years preceding the commencement of this action to  the present who worked more than forty hours in one or more  workweeks.   26.  Such persons are “similarly situated” with respect to Defendant’s FLSA violations  in that all were hourly employees of Defendant, all were subjected to and injured by Defendant’s  5  unlawful practice of failing to pay its employees for all hours worked, and all have the same  claims against Defendant for unpaid wages and overtime compensation as well as for liquidated  damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.   27.  Conditional certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) is proper and necessary so that such persons may be sent a Court-authorized notice  informing them of the pendency of this action and giving them the opportunity to “opt in.”   28.  Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of similarly-situated persons.  Such  persons are readily identifiable through the payroll records Defendant has maintained, and was  required to maintain, pursuant to the FLSA and Ohio law.  29 U.S.C. § 211(c) & 29 C.F.R. §  215.2; Ohio Const. art. II, § 34a.  29.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   30.  Plaintiff also brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on  behalf of herself and other members of the Ohio Class, defined as:  All present and former hourly employees of Defendant during the  period two years preceding the commencement of this action to the  present who worked more than forty hours in one or more  workweeks.   31.  The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.   Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of class members but avers, upon information and  belief, that it consists of over 40 people.  The number of class members as well as their identities  are ascertainable from the payroll records Defendant has maintained, and was required to  6  maintain, pursuant to the FLSA and Ohio law.  29 U.S.C. § 211(c) & 29 C.F.R. § 215.2; Ohio  Const. art. II, § 34a.   32.  There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not  limited to:  Whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other class members  for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek;   Whether Defendant’s rounding and docking practices are lawful;  and,  Whether Defendant kept adequate records of the hours worked by  Plaintiff and the other class members.   33.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Class.   Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same uniform course of conduct by Defendant, and are based  on the same legal theories, as the claims of other class members.   34.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class.   Plaintiff’s interests are not antagonistic to, but rather are in unison with, the interests of other  class members.  Plaintiff’s counsel has broad experience in handling class action litigation,  including wage-and-hour litigation, and is fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio  Class in this case.   35.  The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Class predominate over  any questions affecting only individual members.  The primary questions that will determine  Defendant’s liability to the class, listed above, are common to the class as a whole, and  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.   36.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Requiring class members to pursue their claims individually  would entail a host of separate suits, with concomitant duplication of costs, attorneys’ fees, and  7  demands on court resources.  Many class members’ claims are sufficiently small that they would  be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, and risk of pursuing their claims individually.   Certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will enable the issues to  be adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.   37.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   38.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the FLSA’s overtime provisions on  behalf of herself and the Opt-Ins who have joined this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   Plaintiff’s written consent to becoming a party to this action pursuant to § 216(b) has been filed  or will be filed with the Court.    39.  The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees be paid at a rate of one and one- half times their regular rate for every hour worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.   40.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins overtime compensation for all  hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek.   41.  Instead, Defendant has a companywide policy of failing to pay its employees for  all time worked in that its rounding and pay docking practices routinely resulted in Plaintiff and  the Opt-Ins working hours for which they were not compensated.    42.  Defendant’s practices resulted in Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins receiving less overtime  compensation than they were owed.    43.  By engaging in these practices, Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and  regulations thereunder that have the force and effect of law.  8   44.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Opt-Ins were  injured in that they did not receive overtime compensation due to them pursuant to the FLSA.  29  U.S.C. § 216(b) entitles them to an award of “unpaid overtime compensation” as well as “an  additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”  Section 216(b) further provides that “[t]he  court … shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or Plaintiff, allow a  reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.”  45.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    46.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the Ohio overtime compensation statute,  Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03, on behalf of herself and all members of the Ohio Class for  which certification is sought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.   47.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an employer covered by the Ohio overtime  compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03.   48.  Defendant violated the Ohio overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code  Ann. § 4111.03, by failing to pay all overtime compensation to its hourly workers including  Plaintiff and the Ohio Class.   49.  Specifically, among other things, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Ohio  Class for all time worked.    50.  Defendant’s violations of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03 injured Plaintiff and  the Ohio Class members in that they did not receive overtime compensation due to them  pursuant to that statute.  9   51.  Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.10(A) provides that Defendant, having violated §  4111.03, is “liable to the employee[s] affected for the full amount of the overtime wage rate, less  any amount actually paid to the employee[s] by the employer, and for costs and reasonable  attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court.”   9.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an “employer” within the meaning of the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).   Defendant’s Status as an “Employer”  