27.  Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in the Southern  District of Florida at some point in the three years preceding the date the instant action was filed.   28.  Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs are similarly situated, have substantially  similar job duties, have substantially similar pay provisions, and are all subject to Defendants’  unlawful policies and practices as discussed herein.   29.  There are numerous similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants  who worked overtime hours during the relevant period without receiving overtime compensation,  and who would benefit from the issuance of a Court Supervised Notice of the instant lawsuit and  the opportunity to join in the present lawsuit.   30.  Similarly situated current and former employees are known to Defendants, are  readily identifiable by Defendants, and can be located through Defendants’ records.   31.  Therefore, Named Plaintiff should be permitted to bring this action as a collective  action for and on behalf of himself and those similarly situated employees, pursuant to the “opt- in” provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   32.  Named Plaintiff began working for Defendants at their grocery store and butcher  shop in June of 2007 and remained employed until Defendants terminated his employment on  April 6, 2020.    34.  Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs regularly work/worked in excess of 40  hours per workweek.   35.  Although Named Plaintiff’s hours varied, he generally worked 60 to 67 hours per  workweek.     36.  Upon information and belief, Collective Plaintiffs also work/worked approximately  the same number of hours per workweek.   37.  Throughout Named Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants had knowledge of Named  Plaintiff’s overtime hours, but purposefully failed to provide him complete and adequate overtime  pay in violation of the FLSA.   38.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ pattern and practice of depriving  overtime compensation extended to other individuals at Sunrise Meats, including other similarly  situated employees who work/worked overtime hours without being appropriately compensated.   39.  Defendants are/were required to keep accurate time records for all hours worked by  Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs.  Upon information and belief, Defendants fail/failed to  keep the required records.   40.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs based on the actual  number of hours worked and at the proper rate.   41.  Defendants’ FLSA violations are/were willful and intentional.   43.  On or about April 6, 2020, Plaintiff complained about and/or objected to an actual  violation of law, or what he reasonably believed to be a violation of law, and was terminated as a  direct result of same, which constitutes a violation of the FWA.   44.  Specifically, Plaintiff complained about and/or objected to Defendants’ failure to  comply with safety guidelines in light of the COVID-19 pandemic by allowing an excessive  number of customers in the store.     45.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) General Duty  Clause requires an employer to provide its employees with a safe workplace free of recognizable  hazards.  This includes providing employees with a safe work environment by complying with the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidelines, which include social distancing.   See 29 U.S.C. § 654(5)(a)(1).   46.  Plaintiff’s complaints about and/or objections to the unsafe work practices in  violation of OSHA regulations constitute protected activity pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3).   47.  As soon as Plaintiff complained about Sunrise Meats’ failure to provide a safe work  environment for its employees, Defendant Alonso immediately instructed Plaintiff to go home,  effectively terminating his employment.   48.  Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs re-adopt each and every factual allegation  as stated in paragraphs 1 through 42 above as though fully recited herein.   49.  Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to be paid time and one-half  for all hours worked in excess of 40 in each workweek.   55.  Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs re-adopt each and every factual allegation  as stated in paragraphs 1 through 42 above as though fully recited herein.   56.  During the relevant period, Alfonso was an Executive Officer and owner of the  corporate Defendant, Sunrise Meats.   57.  During the relevant period, Alfonso operated, oversaw, and controlled the day-to- day activities of Sunrise Meats, had supervisory authority over Named Plaintiff and Collective  Plaintiffs, had knowledge of the hours worked by Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs, and  was partially or totally responsible for paying Named Plaintiff’s and Collective Plaintiffs’ wages  for the hours he/they worked.   58.  Alfonso was Named Plaintiff’s and Collective Plaintiffs’ employer, joint employer,  or co-employer during the relevant period for purposes of the FLSA, as the term employer is  defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203.   60.  Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs’ are owed unpaid overtime compensation  pursuant to the FLSA for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.   61.  Alfonso is also jointly and severally liable for double the overtime amounts owed  as liquidated damages under the FLSA as a result of intentional and willful violations of the FLSA.  WHEREFORE, Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the  following relief against Alfonso:  A.  Adjudge and decree that Alfonso violated the FLSA and did so willfully,  intentionally, and with reckless disregard;  B.  Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs actual damages for unpaid  overtime compensation;   C.  Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs liquidated damages;  D.  Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs the costs of this action, together  with reasonable attorneys’ fees;   E.  Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs all recoverable interest;  F.  Grant Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs such additional relief as the Court  deems just and proper under the circumstances.  62.  Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1  through 47 above as though fully recited herein.   64.  Sunrise Meats’ termination of Plaintiff’s nearly 13-year employment was a direct  result of his complaints about, or objections to, Sunrise Meats’ activities, policies or practices  which were in violation of laws, rules or regulations, such as OSHA’s General Duty Clause.  See  29 U.S.C. § 654(5)(a)(1).   65.  As a direct and proximate result of Sunrise Meats’ intentional conduct, Plaintiff  suffered serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering, anxiety, distress, and other  mental conditions.   66.  Any alleged justification by Sunrise Meats for terminating Plaintiff’s employment  is a mere pretext for the actual reason, which was Plaintiff’s complaints about, or objections to,  the aforementioned activities, policies, and/or practices of Sunrise Meats which were violations of  laws, rules, and/or regulations.   67.  Sunrise Meats’ actions were malicious and recklessly indifferent to Plaintiff’s  rights under the FWA.   OVERTIME VIOLATIONS AGAINST SUNRISE MEATS UNDER THE FLSA AS TO   NAMED PLAINTIFF AND COLLECTIVE PLAINTIFFS   OVERTIME VIOLATIONS AGAINST ALFONSO UNDER THE FLSA AS TO  NAMED PLAINTIFF AND COLLECTIVE PLAINTIFFS   RETALIATION UNDER THE FWA AGAINST SUNRISE MEATS  