(Alleging FLSA Violations)    11.  Defendant is a “T-Mobile Premium Retailer” that according to the Employee  Handbook it provided to Plaintiff, “is guided by a relentless focus to build a company that will be  the leader in the wireless industry for T-Mobile products.”   12.  According to its website, Defendant operates over 100 T-Mobile retail stores  across the country.   13.  Defendant typically staffs each of its retail stores with one Store Manager (“SM”)  and one Assistant Store Manager (“ASM”).    14.  Regardless of store location, Defendant’s SMs and ASMs are paid a salary.   15.  Regardless of store location, Defendant has classified its SMs and ASMs as  exempt from receiving overtime pay.   16.  Regardless of store location, Defendant’s SMs and ASMs work over 40 hours per  week.   17.  Regardless of store location, Defendant does not pay its SMs and ASMs any  3  compensation for hours worked over 40 per week.     18.  In addition to SMs and ASMs, Defendant also assigns sales employees to each  store who it has classified as “non-exempt” from the FLSA.   19.  Typically, Defendant assigns two (2) to three (3) non-exempt sales employees to  each store.   20.  All of Defendant’s store employees, including SMs and ASMs, are required to  record their hours worked in Defendant’s internal timekeeping system.   21.  Because there are not at least two full-time non-exempt employees per each SM  and ASM at Defendant’s stores, SMs and ASMs do not customarily and regularly direct the work  of the equivalent of two or more full-time employees as required by U.S. Department of Labor  regulations.  See 29 C.F.R. §541.100; id. at §541.104.  Thus, Defendant’s SMs and ASMs cannot  satisfy the “executive” exemption to the FLSA.  See 29 U.S.C. §213(a).   22.  From approximately March 2016 to June 2016, Plaintiff was employed by  Defendant as a SM and was assigned to Defendant’s Cherry Hill, New Jersey store.   23.  Defendant paid Plaintiff a salary as a SM and classified him as “exempt” from the  FLSA’s overtime pay requirement.   24.  Plaintiff often worked over 40 hours per week as a SM.  In particular, Plaintiff  estimates that he regularly was required to work approximately 55 hours during a typical week  and sometimes more.   25.  Defendant did not pay Plaintiff any compensation for hours worked over 40 per  week while he was employed as a SM.   26.  From approximately March 2016 until June 2016, Defendant’s Cherry Hill store  4  was staffed with a SM (Plaintiff), an ASM, and two (2) non-exempt sales employees.   27.  Because Defendant assigned only two non-exempt employees to the Cherry Hill  store, neither Plaintiff nor the ASM were able to customarily and regularly direct the work of  two or more other employees to satisfy the executive exemption.  See 29 C.F.R. §541.100; id. at  §541.104.  28.  Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section  16(b), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of:  All SMs and ASMs employed by Defendant in the  United States in the past three years. Plaintiff’s consent form to act as a representative party- Plaintiff in this FLSA overtime lawsuit is attached herein as Exhibit A.    29.  Plaintiff’s FLSA claim should proceed as a collective action because Plaintiff and  other potential members of the collective, having worked pursuant to the common policies  described herein, are “similarly situated” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and the  associated decisional law.  30.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   31.  Plaintiff and the collective are employees entitled to the FLSA’s protections.   32.  Defendant is an employer covered by the FLSA.   33.  The FLSA entitles employees to overtime compensation “not less than one and  one-half times” their regular pay rate for all hours worked over 40 per week.  See 29 U.S.C. §  207(a)(1).   34.  Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and the collective any  compensation, including overtime premium compensation, for hours worked over 40 per week.  5   35.  In violating the FLSA, Defendant acted willfully and with reckless disregard of  clearly applicable FLSA provisions and, thus, has committed a willful violation of the FLSA.  COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICES  