14. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees as authorized under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  The similarly situated employees include: Collective Class: All persons who are or have been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt cleaner within three years prior to this action’s filing date (hereinafter “Collective Class”).  15. Plaintiffs and the Collective Class work or have worked for Defendants as hourly cleaners at locations in Wisconsin within the three years preceding the filing of this complaint.  16. Defendants’ handbook contains the terms and conditions of employment for its employees including Plaintiffs and the Collective Class.  17. Pursuant to Defendants’ handbook, all hours worked by Plaintiffs and the Collective Class in excess of forty (40) in a workweek will be compensated at one and one-half times the regular rate.  19. Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiffs and the Collective Class to work without being paid appropriate compensation for each hour worked.  20. Defendants, as a matter of policy and practice, do not pay their employees for all hours of compensable work including: (a) work performed prior to the start of a scheduled shift; (b) work performed after the end of a scheduled shift; and (c) work performed during unpaid thirty (30) minute “lunch breaks.”  21. These practices resulted in Plaintiffs and the Collective Class being denied overtime compensation by Defendants at the rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.  22. Defendants routinely deducted thirty (30) minutes per day from Plaintiffs and the Collective Class for a “lunch break;” however, Plaintiffs and the Collective Class were suffered or permitted to work through a portion of their unpaid lunch break.  Plaintiffs and the Collective Class were rarely afforded a full thirty (30) minutes of uninterrupted break where they were free from work.  23. Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiffs and the Collective Class to perform work prior to the start of their scheduled shift and prior to punching in for the day.  The effect of such a practice was for Defendants to deny Plaintiffs and the Collective Class their agreed upon wage for the hours worked that were not counted as work.  25. Defendants paid Plaintiffs and the Collective Class at a straight time rate for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.  26. Defendants do not maintain proper time records for Plaintiffs and the Collective Class. Defendants do not maintain proper records of the start and end time of each employees workday; nor have Defendants recorded the start and end time of any unpaid breaks.  27. Defendants’ conduct, as set forth in this complaint, was willful and in bad faith, and has caused significant damages to Plaintiffs and the Collective Class.  28. Defendant Kusch has operational control of Regency.  29. Defendant Kusch is involved in the day-to-day operations of Regency.  30. Defendant Kusch is President of Regency.  31. Defendant Kusch is General Manager of Regency.  32. Defendant Kusch has final authority to make decisions of importance with regard to the business operations of Regency.  33. Defendant Kusch has final authority to make decisions of importance with regard to the personnel operations of Regency.  34. Defendant Kusch has final authority to make decisions of importance with regard to the compensation of Regency’s employees.  35. Defendant Kusch’s signature appeared on Plaintiffs and the Collective Class’ pay checks.  37. The First Claim for Relief is brought under and maintained as an opt-in Collective Action pursuant to § 216(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b), by Plaintiffs on behalf of the Collective Class.  38. The FLSA claims may be pursued by those who affirmatively opt in to this case, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  39. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs and the Collective Class are and have been similarly situated, have and have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans and programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to compensate them for each hour worked including overtime compensation.  The claims of Plaintiffs stated herein are the same as those of the Collective Class.  40. Plaintiffs and the Collective Class seek relief on a collective basis challenging, among other FLSA violations, Defendants’ practice of failing to accurately record all hours worked and failing to pay employees for all hours worked including overtime compensation.  41. The FLSA 216(b) Collective Class is readily ascertainable.  For purpose of notice and other purposes related to this action, their names, phone numbers, and addresses are readily available from Defendants.  Notice can be provided to the Collective Class via first class mail to the last address known to Defendants and through posting at Defendants’ facilities in areas where postings are normally made. 43. The Wisconsin Class members are readily ascertainable.  The number and identity of the Wisconsin Class members are determinable from the records of Defendants.  The job titles, length of employment and the rates of pay for each Wisconsin Class member are also determinable from Defendants’ records.  For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this action, their names and addresses are readily available from Defendant.  Notice can be provided by means permissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  44. The proposed Wisconsin Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, and more importantly the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the court.  Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts on which the calculation of that number are presently within the sole control of Defendants, upon information and belief, there are more than two hundred members of the Wisconsin Class.  46. Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Wisconsin Class and have no interests antagonistic to the Wisconsin Class.  Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys who are experienced and competent in both class action litigation and employment litigation and have previously represented numerous Plaintiffs in wage and hour cases.  47. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy – particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where individual class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit against corporate defendants.  Class action treatment will permit a number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary duplication of efforts and expense that numerous individual actions engender. Because the losses, injuries and damages suffered by each of the individual Wisconsin Class members are small in the sense pertinent to a class action analysis, the expenses and burden of individual litigation would make it extremely difficult or impossible for the individual Wisconsin Class members to redress the wrongs done to them.  49. Defendants have violated and continue to violate the WWPCL regarding payment of wages and overtime premium wages.  Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation.  Former employees are fearful of bringing claims because doing so can harm their employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure employment.  Class actions provide class members who are not named in the complaint a degree of anonymity which allows for the vindication of their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.  50. There are questions of fact and law common to the class that predominates over any questions affecting only individual members.  The questions of law and fact common to the class arising from Defendants’ actions include, without limitation, the following: a) Whether the work performed by Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class is compensable under federal law and/or Wisconsin law; b) Whether Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of forcing, coercing, deceiving and/or permitting Plaintiffs and the Class to perform work for Defendants’ benefit without being properly compensated; c) Whether Defendants failed to maintain true and accurate records for all hours worked by the Wisconsin Class as required by Wisconsin Law; d) Whether Defendants failed to pay the Wisconsin Class for all work Defendants suffered or permitted them to perform; and e) The nature and extent of class-wide injury and the measure of damages for the injury.  52. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Collective Class, reassert and incorporate by reference all paragraphs set forth above as if restated herein.  53. At all time material herein, Plaintiffs and the Collective Class have been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq.  54. At all time material herein, Kusch was an employer of Plaintiffs and the Collective Class as provided under the FLSA.  55. Plaintiffs and the Collective Class are victims of a uniform and facility-wide compensation policy and practice in violation of the FLSA.  56. Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to account for and compensate Plaintiffs and the Collective Class for overtime premium pay for each hour he/she worked in excess of forty (40) hours each workweek.  57. In perpetrating these unlawful practices, Defendants have also willfully failed to keep accurate records for all of the time worked by Plaintiffs and the Collective Class.  59. Defendants were and are subject to the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA because Defendants are an enterprise engaged in commerce and/or its employees are engaged in commerce, as defined in FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(b).  60. Defendants’ failure to properly compensate Plaintiffs and the Collective Class and failure to properly record all compensable work time was willfully perpetrated. Defendants have not acted in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to believe their actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and as a result thereof, Plaintiffs and the Collective Class are entitled to recover an award of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime premium pay described above pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  Alternatively, should the Court find that Defendants did not act willfully in failing to pay overtime premium pay wages, Plaintiffs and the Collective Class are entitled to an award of pre-judgment interest at the applicable legal rate.  61. As a result of the aforesaid willful violations of the FLSA’s provisions, overtime compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Defendants from Plaintiffs and the Collective Class for which Defendants are liable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  62. Plaintiffs and the Collective Class are entitled to damages equal to the mandated overtime premium pay within the three years preceding the date of filing of this Complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling because Defendants acted willfully and knew or showed reckless disregard of whether its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA.  64. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Wisconsin Class, re-allege and incorporate all previous paragraphs as if they were set forth herein.  65. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class were employees within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §109.01(1r).  66. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class were employees within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §103.001(5).  67. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class were employees within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §104.01(2)(a).  68. At all relevant times, Regency was an employer within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §109.01(2).  69. At all relevant times, Regency was an employer within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §103.001(6).  70. At all relevant times, Regency was an employer within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §104.01(3)(a).  71. At all relevant times, Regency was an employer within the meaning of Wis. Admin.  §DWD 272.01(5).  72. At all relevant times, Regency has employed, and continues to employ Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class as within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§109.01 et seq., 103.01 et seq. 104.01 et seq. and Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 272.01.  74. At all relevant times, Kusch was an employer within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §103.001(6).  75. At all relevant times, Kusch was an employer within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §104.01(3)(a).  76. At all relevant times, Kusch was an employer within the meaning of Wis. Admin. 84. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Wisconsin Class, re-allege and incorporate all previous paragraphs as if they were set forth herein.  85. Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class have been entitled payment from Defendants at the agreed upon wage, as defined in Wis. Stat. §109.01(3), for each hour worked by Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class pursuant to Wis. Stat. §109.03.  86. Pursuant to a handbook issued by Defendants, Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class have been entitled to the agreed upon rate of one and half (1.5) times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.  87. Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class have also been entitled to their agreed upon hourly rate for all hours of work performed up to forty (40) in a workweek.  88. Defendants violated the WWPCL by failing to properly compensate Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class for each hour worked by Plaintiffs and the Collective Class.  Violation of WWPCL – Unpaid Overtime (Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Wisconsin Class)  Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as Amended (Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Collective Class)  WWPCL - Failure To Pay Agreed Upon Wage (Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Wisconsin Class) 