(FLSA Overtime Violations)   (Ohio Class)   (Ohio Overtime Violations)   10.  Defendant’s hourly employees included Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins and  members of 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).  Defendant’s Business   12.  Among other things, Defendant provides warehousing and logistics services to the  automotive industry, including the Lordstown Assembly Complex.    13.  Plaintiff worked at Defendant’s Austintown, Ohio location.   14.  In addition to the Austintown, Ohio location, Defendant operates approximately  five other warehousing and logistics locations throughout the country, including: Avon Lake,  Ohio; Spring Hill, Tennessee; Dearborn, Michigan; East Moline, Illinois; and, Columbus,  Mississippi.   Hourly Employees’ Compensation   15.  Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), and the members of the Ohio Class, are current or former hourly employees of  Defendant.  They were paid hourly wages as well as nondiscretionary attendance bonuses. Many  received shift differential pay.   16.  Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) and the members of the Ohio Class worked more than forty (40) hours in a single  workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA.    4  Defendant’s Miscalculation of Overtime Compensation   17.  The FLSA and Ohio law requires Defendant to pay overtime compensation to its  hourly employees at one and one-half times their “regular rate,” and to include in the calculation  of their regular rates “all remunerations for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,”  including nondiscretionary bonus and incentive payments, as well as shift differential pay.  29  U.S.C. § 207(e)(3); 29 C.F.R. 778.208, 778.217; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03(A)  (incorporating FLSA standards).   18.  Defendant unlawfully excluded the nondiscretionary bonus payments and shift  differential pay that it paid to its hourly employees in determining their “regular rates” for  purposes of overtime compensation.  Defendant thereby miscalculated and underpaid the  overtime compensation it paid to hourly employees, including Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins and  members of the Ohio Class.   19.  Plaintiff received a non-discretionary attendance bonus, which was not included  in his regular rate for purposes of computing overtime.   20.  Plaintiff received a $.15 shift differential, which was not included in his regular  rate for purposes of computing overtime.   21.  Defendant’s failure to include the attendance bonus payments and the $.15 shift  differential payment in computing his regular rate for purposes of computing overtime has  resulted in the underpayment of overtime.  22.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    23.  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  5  be maintained against any employer … by any one or more employees for and in behalf of  himself or himself and other employees similarly situated.”   24.  The Potential 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 throughout  the country during the period three years preceding the  commencement of this action to the present who received  nondiscretionary bonus payments, including attendance bonuses,  and/or received a shift differential, and who worked more than  forty hours in one or more workweeks in which the  nondiscretionary bonus and/or shift differential payments were  earned.   25.  Such persons are “similarly situated” with respect to Defendant’s FLSA violations  in that all were hourly employees of Defendant, were subjected to and injured by Defendant’s  unlawful practice of excluding the nondiscretionary bonus payments and shift differentials from  the calculation of employees’ “regular rates” for overtime compensation, and all have the same  claims against Defendant for unpaid wages and overtime compensation as well as for liquidated  damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.   26.  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.”   27.  Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of Potential Opt-Ins but avers, upon  information and belief, that they consist of over 40 persons.  Such persons are readily identifiable  through the payroll records Defendant have 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.  6  28.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   29.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf  of himself and other members of a class of persons who assert claims under the laws of the State  of Ohio (the “Ohio Class”), defined as:  All present and former hourly employees of Defendant throughout  the country during the period two years preceding the  commencement of this action to the present who received  nondiscretionary bonus payments, including attendance bonuses,  and/or received a shift differential, and who worked more than  forty hours in one or more workweeks in which the  nondiscretionary bonus and/or shift differential payments were  earned.   30.  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 aver, upon information and  belief, that they consist of over 40 persons.  The number of class members as well as their  identities are ascertainable from 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.   31.  There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not  limited to:  a) Whether Defendant miscalculated the overtime compensation it  paid to Plaintiff and other class members by excluding  nondiscretionary bonus and shift differential payments from the  calculation of their “regular rates” for purposes of overtime  compensation.  b) Whether Plaintiff and other class members would have received  additional overtime compensation if nondiscretionary bonus and  7  shift differential payments had properly been included in their  “regular rates” of pay, and, if so, in what amount.   32.  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.   33.  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 have broad experience in handling class action litigation,  including wage-and-hour litigation, and are fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio  Class in this case.   34.  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.   35.  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  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.  8  36.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   37.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the FLSA’s overtime provisions on  behalf of himself and the Potential Opt-Ins.  Plaintiff’s written consent to become a party to this  action pursuant to § 216(b) will be filed with the Court.    38.  The FLSA requires that hourly and other non-exempt employees receive overtime  compensation of “not less than one and one-half times” the employees’ “regular rate.”  29 U.S.C.  § 207(a)(1).   39.  Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-Ins should have been paid overtime compensation  at the rate of one and one-half times their “regular rate” for all hours worked in excess of forty  hours per workweek.   40.  Defendant miscalculated and underpaid the overtime compensation it paid to  Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-Ins by excluding nondiscretionary bonus payments, including  attendance bonuses, and shift differential payments from the calculation of their “regular rates.”   41.  By engaging in that practice, Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and  regulations thereunder that have the force and effect of law.   42.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Potential 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 Defendants, and costs of the action.”  9  43.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    44.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the Ohio overtime compensation statute,  Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03, on behalf of himself and all members of the Ohio Class for  which certification is sought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.   45.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an employer covered by the Ohio overtime  compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03.   46.  Defendant violated the Ohio overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code  Ann. § 4111.03, by excluding incentive payments, including non-discretionary attendance  bonuses, and shift differential payments from the calculation of employees’ regular rates for  purposes of overtime compensation.   47.  Defendant’s violations of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03 injured Plaintiff and  the Ohio Class members in that they did not receive all of the overtime compensation due to  them pursuant to that statute.    48.  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), and corresponding provisions of Ohio law including the Ohio  overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03.  3   Defendant’s Status As an “Employer”  