11.  Even though Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Defendant failed  and refused to pay her at a rate of one and one-half times her normal rate of pay for all hours  worked in excess of 40 hours.    12.  Although this happened numerous times, provides the pay period of February 19,  2020 through March 3, 2020 as an example of Defendants illegal pay scheme:   (a) Plaintiff worked 81.85 hours as an “Assistant Manager” at the Laclede Station  location;  (b) Plaintiff worked 56.64 hours as “Hourly” at the Euclid location;    13.  Thus, Plaintiff worked 138.49 hours over a two week pay period, or, approximately   14.  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to, based on currently available timesheet data, 29.245  of overtime per week.    15.  Plaintiff was only paid for, on average, 5.52 hours of overtime, leaving an overtime  pay deficit of 23.725 hours, which, for Plaintiff whose normal rate of pay is $13 per hours, equates  to $462.64 per week (23.725 x $13 x 1.5).     16.  The fact that Plaintiff was required to work at two separate locations has not bearing  on Defendant’s overtime pay obligations.    17.  In fact, the structure of Defendant’s staffing / pay practices shows a system set up to  avoid having to pay full overtime wages.   18.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2),  and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and a class and subclasses of  persons similarly situated and seeking relief, and defined as:  The FLSA Collective   All current and former workers employed by Defendant who were not paid one and one-half  times his or her normal rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek within three  years preceding the date of filing this action through final judgment in this matter, and who elect  to opt-in to this action;   The Missouri Overtime Subclass  All current and former workers employed by Defendant who were not paid one and one-half  times his or her normal rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek within three  years preceding the date of filing this action through final judgment in this matter;   The Missouri Pay Reduction Subclass  All current and former workers employed by Defendant who had their pay reduced without  receiving 30 day’s written notice, as required by REV. STAT. MO. § 290.100.  The FLSA Collective and The Missouri Overtime Subclass, and the Missouri Pay Reduction Subclass  are collectively referred to herein as the “Collective” or the “Subclasses” unless otherwise indicated.  Plaintiff reserves the right to add, amend, modify, or further define the Collective or Subclasses and/or  4  to move for certification of a collective or classes or subclasses defined differently than set forth above  depending on the facts or law as discovered in this action.    19.  Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant individually and on behalf of all Collective  and Subclass members for violations of the law as set forth below.    20.  The members of the Collective and Subclasses are ascertainable from objective criteria.   21.  If necessary to preserve the case as a collective or class action, the Court itself can  redefine the Class or Subclasses, create additional subclasses, or both.    22.  The requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied for the proposed classes because the  members of the proposed classes are so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of all its  members is impracticable.    23.  Upon information and belief there are more than 40 Missouri Overtime and Pay  Reduction Subclass members.   24.  Therefore, the “numerosity” requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is met.    25.  The commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied because there are questions  of law or fact common to Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed Collective and Missouri  Subclasses that predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Collective and  Missouri Subclasses. Among those common questions of law or fact are, but are not limited to, the  following:  a. whether Defendant failed to pay adequate wages to employees in violation of the  34.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an employer and/or  joint employer engaged in interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce, within  the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   35.  At all relevant times, Defendant employed Plaintiff as an employer and/or joint  employer and employed or continues to employ each of the Collective Action Members, within the  meaning of the FLSA.   36.  Defendant has engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the FLSA, as  detailed in this Complaint.   37.  Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, consented in writing to be a party to this action,  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See, Exhibit 1, Consent to Join.   38.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq apply to Defendant.   39.  At all relevant times and continuing to the present time, Defendant had a policy and  practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation to its similarly-situated employees in comparable  positions but holding different titles, for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.  8   40.  As a result of Defendant’s willful failure to compensate their employees, including  Plaintiff and the Collective Members, at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of  pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, Defendant has violated and continues  to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a)(1) and 215(a).   41.  As a result of Defendant’s FLSA violations, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others  similarly situated, is entitled (a) to recover from Defendant’s unpaid overtime wages, (b) to recover an  additional, equal amount as liquidated damages for Defendant’s willful violations of the FLSA, and (c)  to recover their unreasonably delayed payment of wages reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs and  disbursements of this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   42.  Because Defendant’s violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year statute of  limitations applies pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.  43.  At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff and the proposed putative Rule 23 Subclass have  been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the MMWL.   44.  The MMWL regulates, among other things, the payment of overtime wages by  employers, subject to limited exemptions not applicable herein. § § 290.500(3) and (4), 290.505.1,  RSMo.   45.  During all times relevant to this action, Defendant was the “employer” of Plaintiff and  the Subclass within the meaning of the MMWL. § 290.500(3), (4), RSMo.   46.  During all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and the Missouri Subclass were  “employees” withing the meaning of the MMWL. § 290.500(3) RSMo.  9   47.  Pursuant to the MMWL, employees are entitled to be compensated at a rate of not  less than one-and-one-half times the regular rate in which such employees are employed for all work  performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. . § 290.505.1, RSMo.   48.  Defendant, pursuant to their common policy and practice, violated the MMWL by  refusing and failing to pay Plaintiff and the Employee Class overtime wages required under the  MMWL. § 290.505.1, RSMo.   49.  Plaintiff and the Missouri Subclass are victims of a uniform policy, practice, and  scheme of Defendant to avoid payment of overtime wages they were otherwise entitled to as  employees.   50.  Plaintiff and the Missouri Subclass are entitled to damages equal to all unpaid overtime  wages due within two years preceding the filing of this Complaint plus periods of equitable tolling,  along with an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. § 290.527, RSMo.   51.  Plaintiff and the Missouri Subclass are entitled to an award of pre-judgment and post- judgment interest at the applicable legal rate.   52.  Defendant is liable under § 290.527, RSMo. for Plaintiff’s costs, expenses, and  reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.  53.  At all relevant times, Defendant employed Plaintiff within the State of Missouri.    54.  On or about March 27, 2020, Plaintiff was informed that she would receive a reduction  in pay of $2.00 per hour.    55.  This notice was given via phone, and was not given in writing.    56.  The reduction in pay took effect retroactively, and Plaintiff was never given 30 day’s  notice, as required by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.100.    10   57.  As such, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to $50.00 per person and costs of suit.   69.245 hours per work week.   3   Fair Labor Standard Act – Unpaid Overtime Wages  On Behalf of Plaintiff Tyojuana Lenard and the FLSA Collective   MO Rev Stat §290.100 – Deficient Notice of Reduction of Wages  On Behalf of Plaintiff Tyojuana Lenard and the Class   Missouri Minimum Wage Law – Unpaid Overtime Wages  On Behalf of Plaintiff Tyojuana Lenard and the Missouri Overtime Subclass  