(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (RACE/COLOR DISCRIMINATION – OHIO REVISED CODE § 4112.02, et seq.)   (RETALIATION – OHIO REVISED CODE § 4112.02(I))   (UNPAID OVERTIME PURSUANT TO THE OHIO WAGE LAW)   (VIOLATION OF OHIO'S PROMPT PAY ACT)   24.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis in the amount of  approximately $20 per hour.   25.  He primarily performed blue-collar job duties consisting of operating equipment  and performing general construction work on behalf of Defendants during all times relevant.   27.  Plaintiff’s primary job duties did not consist of the exercise of discretion and  independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.   28.  Thus, at all times relevant, Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt hourly  employee entitled to overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in any workweek.    29.  During the past three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff regularly  worked over (40) hours per week.   30.  During all times relevant, Plaintiff was not paid time-and-a-half (“overtime rate”)  for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) resulting in unpaid overtime wages and other wages  owed to Plaintiff because Defendants have an automatic meal deduction policy and/or practice  whereby they deduct thirty (30) minutes per day from Plaintiff’s compensable time even though  Plaintiff did not receive an uninterrupted meal period in the amount of 30 minutes each day.   31.  During the relevant time period, Defendants applied the same pay practices and  policies to all hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff.   32.  During the previous three years preceding this Complaint, Named Plaintiff was not  paid for all of his compensable hours worked due to the aforementioned meal deduction policy  even though employees did not receive an uninterrupted meal period.   33.  Defendants knew or should have been aware that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty  (40) hours in a workweek, but willfully elected not to compensate him for all hours worked in  excess of forty (40) during the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint.   35.  Named Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a  representative action on behalf of himself and all other Similarly Situated Persons (“SSPs”) of the  opt-in class, consisting of:  All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of  Defendants who performed general labor and worked over 40 hours  in any workweek but were not properly compensated for all of their  overtime hours worked under the FLSA because of Defendant’s  automatic meal deduction policy for the period beginning three  years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint (the  “§216(b) Class” or the “§216(b) Class Members”).   36.  Examples of employees that may be members of the §216(b) Class include, but  may not be limited to, general laborers, foremen, or equivalent positions primarily performing  similar general labor job duties for Defendants.   37.  This FLSA claim is brought as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  §216(b) as to claims for overtime compensation, compensation withheld in violation of the FLSA,  liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under the FLSA. In addition to Named Plaintiff, numerous  putative §216(b) Class Members have been denied proper overtime wages due to Defendants’  company-wide payroll policies and practices. Named Plaintiff is representative of those other  similarly situated employees and is acting on behalf of his interests as well as their own in bringing  this action.   39.  The net effect of Defendants’ policies and practices is that Defendants willfully  failed to pay overtime wages and maintain proper recordkeeping to save payroll costs.  Thus,  Defendants enjoyed substantial ill-gained profits at the expense of the Named Plaintiff and the  §216(b) Class Members.  V.  40.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   41.  During relevant times, Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked more than forty  (40) hours per workweek, but were not compensated at a rate of at least one and one-half times  their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 because of Defendants’ automatic  meal deduction policy.   42.  During relevant times, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not exempt from  the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.   43.  Plaintiff and those similarly situated have suffered damages and continue to suffer  damages as a result of Defendants’ acts or omissions as described herein.  44.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   46.  During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendants jointly  employed the Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members.   47.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members were paid on an hourly basis when  working in non-exempt positions.   48.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours in a  workweek.   49.  The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for every hour worked  in a workweek.  See 29 U.S.C. § 206(b).   50.  The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees receive overtime compensation for  hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   51.  Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving FLSA overtime benefits because, inter  alia, she was not “executive,” “administrative,” or “professional” employees, as those terms are  defined under the FLSA.  See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, et seq.   52.  Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving FLSA overtime benefits because, inter  alia, she was not a “learned professional” employee, as that term is defined under the FLSA.  See  62.  This claim is brought under Ohio Law.    63.  Ohio Law requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not less than  one and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty  (40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the exemptions of  section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.”  See O.R.C. § 4111.03(A); see  also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   64.  The Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated to the Named Plaintiff from Ohio  worked in excess of the maximum weekly hours permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03, but were not  paid one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.   65.  Defendants’ company-wide corporate policy of not properly paying their hourly,  non-exempt one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay rates for each hour worked  over forty (40) hours in a workweek because they were not paid for time spent working through  the meal period deduction even though Defendants knew or should have known that Named  Plaintiff and those similarly situated did not receive an uninterrupted meal period of thirty (30)  minutes each day in any workweek because they were performing substantial duties on behalf of  Defendants.   66.  Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were not exempt from the  wage protections of Ohio Law.   67.  Defendants’ repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to the Named  Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were violations of R.C. §4111.03, and as such,  Defendants acted willfully.    69.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   70.  During relevant times, Defendants were entities covered by the OPPA and the  Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans have been employed by Defendants within  the meaning of the OPPA.   71.  The OPPA requires Defendants to pay Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated  Ohioans all wages, including unpaid overtime, on or before the first day of each month, for wages  earned by him during the first half of the preceding month ending with the fifteenth day  thereof, and on or before the fifteenth day of each month, for wages earned by her during the last  half of the preceding calendar month. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(A).   72.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were  not paid all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times his regular rate within thirty  (30) days of performing the work. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(B).   73.  The Named Plaintiff’s and those similarly situated Ohioans' unpaid wages remain  unpaid for more than thirty (30) days beyond his regularly scheduled payday.   74.  Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans have been harmed and  continue to be harmed by such unpaid wages.   76.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   77.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on an individual basis.   78.  Plaintiff is a member of a protected class from discrimination on the basis of  race/color because he is African-American.   79.  Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff for the purposes of Ohio Revised Code  Chapter 4112.   80.  At the time of his termination, Plaintiff was the only black foreman/general laborer.   81.  At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was qualified for the position he held.   82.  During Plaintiff’s employment, similarly situated non-protected employees were  treated more favorably than Plaintiff.   84.  The above-referenced disparaging remarks were directed at Plaintiff immediately  preceding the yearly interim break, which occurs from January through March each year.   85.  Upon Plaintiff’s expected return to work at the end of March 2017 after the interim  break,2 like he had done for the past 23 years, Plaintiff received a phone call from Imer.   86.  During the phone call, Imer indicated to Plaintiff that “I am not bringing you back  because you are a problem and upper management does not want a problem.” In response, Plaintiff  said, “aren’t you upper management?” Imer replied, “Yeah, that’s what I mean.”   87.  At the time of his termination, Plaintiff had unblemished and lengthy work history.  Nevertheless, Plaintiff was terminated by Imer who frequently expressed his animus towards  Plaintiff and other individuals of his race/color as described above.   88.  By engaging in the preceding conduct, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff,  created a hostile work environment, terminated his employment, and/or otherwise treated him less  favorably than other white employees in the terms, privileges, and conditions of employment,  because of his race/color, in violation of Section 4112.02 of the Ohio Revised Code.   89.  Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not treated with the same indignity  and did not otherwise receive the same unfavorable treatment as Plaintiff.   91.  Defendants' conduct was willful, wanton, reckless and/or malicious for which  Defendant is liable for compensatory damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorney’s fees  and costs.   92.  At all times material herein, Defendants acted in conscious and/or reckless  disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, with great probability that its acts and omissions would cause  substantial harm to Plaintiff.  93.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   94.  In response to the racially-charged comments as described in this Complaint,  Plaintiff verbally opposed being treated differently because of his race/color. He indicated to Imer  that he did not appreciate being referred to as the “problem”, he did not belong in “nigger creek”  like the rest of “them”, and that he would not be addressing Imer as “yes, sir” like the black people  do in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, where the purported “nigger creek” is located.    95.  As such, he engaged in protected activity.   96.  Once Plaintiff engaged in the aforementioned protected activity, Defendants  purposefully retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating his employment and/or not rehiring him  upon return from the interim break.   98.  Defendants’ conduct was willful, wanton, reckless, and/or malicious for which  Defendants are liable for compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees  and costs.  A. 216(b) Collective Action for Unpaid Overtime and Other Wages.   SITUATED  