30.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff seeks to prosecute his FLSA claims  individually and as a collective action on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly  employed by Defendant as AMs at any time during the relevant period (the “Collective Action  Members”).   31.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly  compensate Plaintiff and other AMs.   33.  The similarly situated Collective Action Members are known to Defendant JDSA  I, are readily-identifiable, and can be located through its records.  34.  Defendant JDSA I employed Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members as AMs  during the relevant period.   35.  Defendants maintained control, oversight, and discretion over the operation of all  of its franchised Jason’s Deli restaurants, including its employment practices with respect to the  AMs.   36.  Plaintiff’s and the AMs’ work was performed in the normal course of Defendant’s  business and was integrated into it.   37.  Consistent with the Defendant JDSA I’s policy, pattern and practice, Plaintiff and  the AMs worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks, but Plaintiff and the AMs did not  receive overtime premiums on one or more regularly scheduled pay dates within the relevant  period for hours worked as AMs in excess of 40 in those workweeks.  One such week in which  Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours, but did not receive overtime premiums is the week of  September 20, 2015.   38.  All of the work that the Plaintiff and the AMs performed was assigned by  Defendant JDSA I, or Defendant JDSA I was aware of all of the work that they have performed.    40.  The work that Plaintiff and the AMs performed as part of their primary duty did  not include managerial responsibilities or the exercise of meaningful independent judgment and  discretion.   41.  Regardless of the store at which they worked, Plaintiff’s and the AMs’ primary  job duties included:  a.  preparing food;  b.  helping customers;  c.  bussing tables;  d.  cleaning the restaurant;  e.  checking to make sure that supplies were properly shelved; and  f.  checking inventory.   42.  Regardless of the store at which they worked, Plaintiff’s and the AMs’ primary  job duties did not include:  a.  hiring;  b.  firing;  c.  disciplining other employees;  d.  scheduling;  e.  supervising and delegating; or  f.  exercising meaningful independent judgment and discretion.   43.   Plaintiff’s and the AMs’ primary duties were manual in nature.   44.  The performance of manual labor duties occupied the majority of Plaintiff’s and  the AMs’ working hours.   46.  Upon information and belief, Defendants did not perform a person-by-person  analysis of the AMs’ job duties when making the decision to classify the AMs (and other  similarly-situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different  titles) as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.   47.  Plaintiff and the AMs were paid by salary throughout their entire period of training  to become an Assistant Manager for Defendant, but were not paid overtime premiums when they  worked over 40 hours in a work week during their training periods, at all times throughout the  relevant period.   48.  Defendants knew or should have known that under 29 C.F.R. § 541.705, none of  the bona fide exemptions under the FLSA could apply to Plaintiff’s and the AMs’ work during  their period of training for employment as an Assistant Manager.   49.  Defendants’ conduct alleged herein was willful or in reckless disregard of the  applicable wage and hour laws and was undertaken pursuant to Defendant’s centralized,  company-wide policy, pattern, and practice of attempting to minimize labor costs by not paying  overtime premiums to its AMs.  Defendants knew that AMs were not performing work that  complied with any FLSA exemption and it acted willfully or recklessly in failing to classify  Plaintiff in his AM position and other AMs as non-exempt employees.   51.  During the relevant period, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact  that the FLSA required it to pay employees primarily performing non-exempt duties an overtime  premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.   52.  Accordingly, Defendants’ unlawful conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of  the applicable wage and hour laws and undertaken pursuant to Defendants’ centralized,  company-wide policy, pattern, and practice of attempting to minimize labor costs by not paying  overtime premiums to AMs.   53.  As part of its regular business practice, Defendants have intentionally, willfully,  and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice and policy of violating the FLSA with respect to  AMs.  This policy and pattern or practice includes but it is not limited to:  a.  willfully misclassifying Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members as  exempt from the requirements of the FLSA;  b.  willfully failing to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members  overtime wages for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per  week;   c.  requiring Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members to perform  primarily non-exempt tasks; and  d.  willfully failing to provide enough money in its restaurant-level labor  budgets for its non-exempt employees to perform their duties and  responsibilities, forcing its AMs who were classified by Defendant as  exempt to perform additional non-exempt tasks.   55.  Defendants acted recklessly or in willful disregard of the FLSA by instituting a  policy and/or practice that did not record all hours worked by Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Members during the relevant period.  56.  At all relevant times, Defendant JDSA I has been, and continues to be, an  employer enterprise engaged in interstate commerce and the production of goods for commerce,  within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   57.  Defendants are subject to the coverage of the maximum hours and overtime  compensation provisions of the FLSA.   58.  Defendants engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the FLSA,  as detailed above in this Complaint.   59.  Plaintiff consented in writing to be a party to this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b), as reflected in the attached consent filed contemporaneously herewith.   60.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., apply to  Defendants.   61.  During the relevant period and continuing to the present time, Defendants had a  policy and practice of not paying overtime premiums to Plaintiff and its AMs, for hours worked  in excess of 40 hours per workweek.   63.  As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to record, report, credit and compensate  its employees, including Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members, Defendants have failed to  make, keep and preserve records with respect to each of its AMs sufficient to determine the  wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment, in violation of the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. § 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(c) and 215(a).   64.  As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice of minimizing labor costs by  underfunding the labor budgets for its restaurants, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded  the fact that Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members were primarily performing manual  labor and non-exempt tasks.   66.  As a result of Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the  Collective Action Members, is entitled (a) to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime wages,  (b) to recover an additional, equal amount as liquidated damages, and (c) to recover their  unreasonably delayed payment of wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements of  this action, and all allowable interest, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and the federal rules.   67.  Because Defendants’ violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year  statute of limitations applies pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.  Fair Labor Standard Act – Unpaid Overtime Wages  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective  