17.  Plaintiff White brings Counts I and II, the FLSA unpaid overtime claim and  FLSA unpaid minimum wage claim, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of herself  and the following similarly situated employees of Defendant:  All non-exempt hourly employees, regardless of actual title, who worked for  Defendant during the last three years (“Off-the-Clock Collective Action  Members”).   18.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated hourly, non- exempt employees, seeks relief on a collective basis challenging Defendant’s practice of  failing to pay its employees overtime and the minimum wage for all hours worked.  The  number and identity of other plaintiffs yet to opt-in and consent to be party plaintiffs to the  collective action may be determined from Defendant’s records and potential Collective  Action Members may easily and quickly be notified of the pendency of this action.   20.  Defendant’s overtime and minimum wage practices were routine and  consistent. Throughout the relevant time period over the past three years, the Off-the-Clock  Collective Action Members regularly were not paid the proper overtime and minimum  wage.    21.  Plaintiff and the Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members performed the  same or similar job duties. Moreover, they regularly worked more than forty hours in a  workweek and had their hours deducted by Defendant. Accordingly, the employees  victimized by Defendant’s unlawful pattern and practices are similarly situated to Plaintiff  in terms of employment and pay provisions.    22.  Defendant’s failure to pay overtime and minimum wage compensation at the  rates required by the FLSA result from generally applicable policies or practices and do not  depend on the personal circumstances of the members of the collective action. Thus,  Plaintiff’s experience is typical of the experience of the other non-exempt hourly employees  employed by Defendant.    23.  The Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members, including Plaintiff, regardless  of their precise job requirements or rates of pay, are entitled to overtime compensation for  hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek and the minimum wage. Although the  issue of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction from the common  nucleus of facts pertaining to liability.   24.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Off-the-Clock  Collective Action Members and has retained counsel experienced and competent in the  practice of wage and hour law and class and collective action litigation.  Plaintiff has no  interest that is contrary to or in conflict with the putative members of this collective action.  26.  Plaintiff’s Rule 23 class claims satisfy the numerosity, commonality,  typicality, adequacy, and superiority requirements of a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.  33.  Legacy Inn & Suites is an “employer” within the meaning of the FLSA and  the Arizona Wage Statute.   34.  Plaintiff was hired in January 2019 by Legacy Inn & Suites as a non-exempt  employee paid on an hourly basis, to perform duties as a Cook and Driver.     35.  Plaintiff began working for Legacy Inn & Suites on January 5, 2019, and  Legacy Inn & Suites terminated her as a result of complaints she made about unpaid  overtime and minimum wage on June 19, 2019.   36.  Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt, hourly employee working as a Cook  and Driver.   38.  Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees performed routine labor  on behalf of Legacy Inn & Suites, including duties like cooking, cleaning, and driving.   39.  While Plaintiff’s job duties frequently required her to work in excess of forty  (40) hours per workweek, she was routinely denied the overtime rate of time and a half for  the overtime she worked.   40.  Legacy Inn & Suites had a policy and practice of automatically deducting  thirty minutes for lunch each day an employee worked, even though the employees routinely  worked through their lunch breaks and should have been compensated for that time.   41.  This regular practice of making deductions from Plaintiff’s paychecks  resulted in Legacy Inn & Suites improperly deducting time which Plaintiff worked.   42.  Legacy Inn & Suites also engaged in the regular practice of requiring Plaintiff  to work off the clock for which she was not compensated.     43.  In addition, Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees tracked their time  on handwritten time sheets.  However, Legacy Inn & Suites routinely paid them for less  hours than what was reflected on their written timesheets, resulting in unpaid wages, unpaid  minimum wage, and unpaid overtime.   44.  Legacy Inn & Suites engaged in the regular practice of failing to accurately  record the time during which it suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work.  As such, Legacy  Inn & Suite’s payroll records understate the duration of time that it suffered and permitted  Plaintiff to work during each week of her employment.     45.  Defendant had a policy and practice of automatically deducting one half hour  per day for lunch, regardless of whether Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees  worked through lunch.  This resulted in a reduction of their time in the amount of  approximately 5 hours per pay period, despite the fact that Plaintiff and the similarly situated  employees worked during this time that was deducted and went unpaid.   47.  As a result of the off the clock work and automatically deducted time, Legacy  Inn & Suites failed to compensate Plaintiff minimum wage for all hours worked.   48.  For example, Plaintiff’s timesheets for the period between March 25, 2019  and April 7, 2019 indicate that she worked 84.30 hours.  However, Defendant’s payroll  records for Plaintiff indicate that she was only paid for 79.25 hours during this pay period  at $11 per hour for a total of $871.75.  As a result, Plaintiff was not paid for 5.05 hours of  work during this pay period, including overtime.  In addition, Plaintiff’s hourly wage for  the hours actually worked was only $10.34 when calculating the amount she was  compensated ($871.75) divided by total hours worked (84.30), demonstrating that Legacy  Inn & Suites failed to pay her the minimum wage required by law.     49.  This is one example of Defendant’s pattern and practice of routinely failing  to pay non-exempt, hourly employees like Plaintiff the proper overtime rate and minimum  wages they are owed, which occurred during the typical week of their employment.    50.  The Arizona Wage Statute, A.R.S. §§ 23-363(A), (B), establishes the  minimum wage that employers in Arizona must pay their employees.   51.  The minimum wage in Arizona is $11 per hour for 2019.  When Legacy Inn  & Suites deducted time from Plaintiff’s paychecks for breaks she worked and required her  to work off the clock, it resulted in her wages falling below the minimum wage required.     52.  Defendant routinely failed to pay Plaintiff and the similarly situated non- exempt hourly employees time and a half their regular rate of pay for the overtime they were  required to work.   54.  Defendant’s policy and practice is to willfully deny its hourly, non-exempt  employees overtime pay for hours worked beyond forty (40) in a workweek and minimum  wage they are due.   55.  Defendant failed to timely pay Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees  all the wages they were due.     56.  On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff resigned her employment effective May 26, 2019,  as a result of various issues with management including complaints about her pay.     57.  Plaintiff was rehired by Legacy Inn & Suites on June 6, 2019, and the  company promised that the issues Plaintiff had resigned over would be corrected.   58.  Throughout the entirety of Plaintiff’s employment both before and after her  resignation, Legacy Inn & Suites reduced Plaintiff’s time and required her to work off the  clock.     59.  In June 2019, Plaintiff complained to Legacy Inn & Suites management about  having her paychecks reduced for breaks when she did not take a break, resulting in her not  being paid overtime and minimum wage she was due.   60.  For example, Plaintiff complained to management on June 9, 2019 regarding  Defendant’s policy and practice of automatically deducting hours for breaks during which  she was required to work, which caused her wages to fall below the minimum wage and  caused her to work overtime without receiving time and a half for all hours worked.     61.  Plaintiff also complained to management on June 16, 2019 about the unlawful  minimum wage and overtime practice of automatically reducing her time for breaks when  she had worked.       62.  After Plaintiff issued her complaints about the overtime and minimum wage  policies and practices with Legacy Inn & Suites management, management stated that she  complained too much and terminated her employment on June 19, 2019.     64.  Defendant’s adverse employment action against Plaintiff was unlawful  retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints about Defendant’s unlawful minimum wage and  overtime pay practices.   65.  Defendant’s adverse employment actions were malicious and punitive in  nature and caused Plaintiff both economic and non-economic damages, including lost  wages, emotional distress, embarrassment, and other damages.  66.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself individually and all Off-the-Clock Collective  Action Members, reasserts the allegations set forth in the above paragraphs.   67.  Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members  on an hourly basis, and they are and were all entitled to the overtime protections of the  FLSA as set forth in 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.   68.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, subject to the  minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA because its employees are engaged in  interstate commerce and Defendant has annual revenues in excess of $500,000.   69.  Plaintiff and the Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members are non-exempt  employees entitled to the statutorily mandated overtime pay according to the FLSA.    70.  Defendant was an employer pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).    71.  Defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. § 207 because Plaintiff and the  Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members worked for Defendant in excess of forty hours  per week, but Defendant failed to pay them for those excess hours at the statutorily required  rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA.   73.  Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and the other  Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members all wages due including time and a half for all  hours accrued beyond forty (40) hours in a workweek.   74.  Defendant has acted neither in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to  believe that its actions and omissions complied with the FLSA.   76.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all Off-the-Clock Collective Action  Members, reasserts the allegations set forth in the above paragraphs.   77.  Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members  on an hourly basis, and they are and were all entitled to the minimum wage protections of  the FLSA as set forth in 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.   78.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, subject to the  minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA because its employees are engaged in  interstate commerce and Defendant has annual revenues in excess of $500,000.   79.  Plaintiff and the Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members are non-exempt  employees entitled to the statutorily mandated minimum wage according to the FLSA.    80.  Defendant was an employer pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).    81.  Defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. § 206 because Defendant failed to  pay the Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members the minimum wage as required by the  87.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Arizona Class Members, reasserts the  allegations set forth in the above paragraphs.   88.  At all material times hereto, Plaintiff and the Arizona Class Members were  employed by Defendant within the State of Arizona and have been entitled to the rights,  protections, and benefits provided under the Arizona Wage Statute.   89.  Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees were entitled to the minimum  wage as defined by A.R.S. § 23-363.   90.  Defendant was an employer pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-362(B).   91.  Defendant is aware that, under A.R.S. §§ 23-363, it was obligated to pay  minimum wage due to Plaintiff and the Arizona Class Members.     92.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Arizona Class Members minimum  wage due without a good faith basis for withholding wages.   93.  Defendant has willfully failed and refused to pay minimum wage due to  Plaintiff and the Arizona Class Members.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff  and the Arizona Class Members are entitled to the statutory remedies provided pursuant to  95.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Arizona Class Members, reasserts the  allegations set forth in the above paragraphs.   96.  At all material times hereto, Plaintiff and the Arizona Class Members were  employed by Defendant within the State of Arizona and have been entitled to the rights,  protections, and benefits provided under the Arizona Wage Statute.   97.  Defendant was aware of its obligation to pay timely wages pursuant to A.R.S.  § 23-351.   98.  Defendant is aware that, under A.R.S. §§ 23-350-353, it was obligated to  timely pay all wages due to Plaintiff and the Arizona Class Members.     FED.R.CIV.P. 23 CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE   ARIZONA WAGE STATUTE   (A.R.S. § 23-350 et seq.; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due; Brought Against  Defendant by Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of the Arizona Class Members)   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  (Failure to Properly Pay Minimum Wage and Record Keeping Violations - FLSA -  29 U.S.C. § 206 et seq.; Brought Against Defendant by Plaintiff Individually and on  Behalf of the Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members)   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  (Failure to Properly Pay Overtime and Record Keeping Violations - FLSA - 29  U.S.C. § 207 et seq.; Brought Against Defendant by Plaintiff Individually and on  Behalf of the Off-the-Clock Collective Action Members)  