1.   a substantial risk of each individual plaintiff presenting in separate,  duplicative proceedings the same or essentially similar arguments and  evidence, including expert testimony;   1.   Numerosity (Rule 23(a)(1)).   2.   Existence of Common Questions of Law and Fact (Rule 23(a)(2)).   2.   a multiplicity of trials conducted at enormous expense to both the judicial  system and the litigants;   22.   Plaintiffs bring the Claims for Relief for violation of Ohio’s Constitution as a class action  pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3). Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of themselves and all  members of the following class (the “Ohio Class”) comprised of:  A.   Ohio Class  B.   All current and former servers and bartenders who worked at one of the Defendants’  owned Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants located in the state of Ohio at any time during the  applicable limitations period covered by the filing of this Complaint (three years prior to  filing) up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter.   C.   Rule 23 Allegations   23.   The potential quantity of members of the proposed Ohio Class as defined is so numerous  that joinder of all members would be unfeasible and impractical. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that  the total number of current and formerly employed members of the Ohio Class number is in the hundreds.   The quantity and identity of such membership is readily ascertainable via inspection of the Defendants’  employment and payroll records.   24.   There are common questions of law and fact as to the members of the Ohio Class  which predominate over questions affecting only individual members which include, but are not  limited to, the following:   a.   Whether Defendants failed to keep accurate records of all hours worked and wages  earned by members of the Ohio Class;   b.   Whether Defendants failed to pay members of the Ohio Class the minimum wage in  violation of Article II, §34a of the Ohio Constitution.   c.   Whether the members of the Ohio Class are entitled to compensatory damages, and if  so, the means of measuring such damages;   d.   Whether the members of the Ohio Class are entitled to injunctive relief;   Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 6 of 21  PAGEID #: 6 7  e.   Whether the members of the Ohio Class are entitled to restitution; and  f.   Whether Defendants are liable to members of the Ohio Class for attorneys’ fees and  costs.   25.   The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of all members of the Ohio  Class they seek to represent because all members of the Ohio Class sustained injuries and damages  arising out of Defendants’ common scheme to maximize profits by skimming wages.   26.   Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the proposed Ohio Class they seek to  represent because will fairly protect the interests of the members of the Ohio Class, they have no  interests antagonistic to the members of the Ohio Class, and they will vigorously pursue this suit via  attorneys who are competent, skilled and experienced in litigating matters of this type.   27.   Injunctive Relief is appropriate pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants have  acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the members of the Ohio Class, so that final  injunctive relief as requested herein is appropriate respecting the Ohio Class as a whole.     28.   The nature of this action and the nature of the laws available to members of the  Ohio Class make the use of the class action format particularly efficient and the appropriate procedure  to afford relief to them for the wrongs alleged herein, for the following reasons:  a.   By establishing a technique whereby the claims of many individuals can be resolved at  the same time, the class suit both eliminates the possibility of repetitious litigation and  provides small claimants with a method of obtaining redress for claims which would  otherwise be too small to warrant individual litigation;  b.   This case involves a large number of individual class members with many relatively  small claims.  If each individual member was required to file an individual lawsuit, the  Defendants would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage because it would be  able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each individual class member  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 7 of 21  PAGEID #: 7 8  with its vastly superior financial and legal resources;  c.   Requiring each individual member to pursue an individual remedy would also  discourage the assertion of lawful claims by class members, who would be disinclined  to pursue action against Defendants because of an appreciable and justifiable fear of  retaliation and permanent damage to their lives, careers and well-being;   d.   Proof of a common business practice to maximize profits through wage theft will  provide the common proof to establish liability against Defendants;  e.   Absent class treatment, the prosecution of separate actions by the individual members  of the Ohio Class, even if possible, would likely create:   29.   Finally, adjudicating this action on a class basis is appropriate because liability  turns on Defendants’ own uniform and systematic scheme to maximize profits by depriving its  employees of wages, overtime wages, and forcing them to work off the clock.  Class-wide liability  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 8 of 21  PAGEID #: 8 9  can be determined through manageable devices of common proof such as statistical random sampling,  survey evidence based on scientific principles, representative testimony, documentary evidence and  Defendants’ common policies and practices.  Once liability is determined, the damages suffered by  each member can also be determined by the same common proof.       3.   Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3)).   3.   inconsistent or varying verdicts or adjudications; and   30.   Plaintiffs do not contemplate class notice if the Ohio Class is certified under Rule  23(b)(2), which does not require notice, and notice to the putative Class may be accomplished through  publication, or other forms of distribution, if necessary, if the Class is certified under Rule 23(b)(3),  or if the Court otherwise determines class notice is required. Plaintiffs will, if notice is so required,  confer with Defendants and seek to present the Court with a stipulation and proposed order on the  details of a class notice program.   31.   Defendants are the owners, principal shareholders, or controlling members or  managers of Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in Ohio.   32.   At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been an employer of multiple  employees engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and  207(a).    33.   Defendant Larry Tipton resides in Lancaster, Ohio and has control over the day-to- day business operations of the corporate Defendants’ Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant. Among other  things, Tipton has the authority to hire and fire employees, the authority to direct and supervise the  work of employees, the authority to sign on each corporation’s checking accounts, including payroll  accounts, and the authority to participate in decisions regarding employee compensation and capital  expenditures. Tipton controls the “purse strings” of his Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants, including  those operated through the corporate Defendants: he signs the corporate checks without limitation as  to amount; provides funds to purchase goods, as well as pay employees; and has authority to sign on  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 9 of 21  PAGEID #: 9 10  the checking accounts from which Plaintiffs were paid.   34.   The corporate Defendants are Ohio corporations with their principal business being  Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in Ohio.   35.   Plaintiff Zachary Barton is an Ohio citizen and resides in this judicial district.  Defendants employed Plaintiff Zachary Barton as a server and bartender at their Buffalo Wild Wings  restaurant in Athens, Ohio, between approximately November, 2012 and June, 2016. During his  employment, Barton also worked occasionally as a Wing Certified Trainer.   36.   Plaintiff Ethan Forness is a Florida citizen and resides in Sarasota, Florida.   Defendants employed Plaintiff Ethan Forness as a server and bartender at their Buffalo Wild Wings  restaurant in Athens, Ohio between approximately October, 2014 and February, 2017.  During his  employment, Forness also worked occasionally as a Wing Certified Trainer.     37.   Defendants paid Plaintiffs less than minimum wage to work as a server and  bartender. Plaintiffs were not informed by Defendants’ of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA.  Defendants also required Plaintiffs to “reimburse” expenses to the restaurant from tips in violation of  the FLSA.   38.   While paying them sub-minimum wage, Defendants required Plaintiffs to spend  over twenty percent of their work time in one or more individual workweeks performing related non- tipped work, and required them to perform unrelated non-tipped duties that had no customer  interaction and that did not generate tips. A non-exhaustive list of these examples follows:  a.   Cleaning bathrooms;  b.   Sweeping, mopping, and/or deck scrubbing restaurant floors;  c.   Sweeping up cigarette butts from the patio and/or removing them from the  flower beds outside the restaurant;  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 10 of 21  PAGEID #: 10 11  d.   Washing silverware, food platters, salad plates, and/or glassware;  e.   Taking out garbage;  f.   Cleaning restaurant walls;  g.   Cleaning the soda machines;  h.   Cleaning high chairs and booster seats;  i.   Rolling silverware;  j.   Setting up or breaking down the expo line; and  k.   Portioning Food.   39.   Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiffs and the putative class portion food while  working on tip credit required a substantial amount of time.  This task alone often takes more than an  hour during a shift.   Common Factual Allegations   4.   potentially incompatible standards of conduct for Ultimate Fitness.  f.   The claims of the individual members of the Ohio Class are not sufficiently large to  warrant vigorous individual prosecution considering all of the concomitant costs and  expenses attendant thereto;    g.   Courts seeking to preserve efficiency and other benefits of class actions routinely  fashion methods to manage any individual questions; and  h.   Judicial precedent urges trial courts, which have an obligation to consider the use of  innovative procedural tools to certify a manageable class, to be procedurally innovative  in managing class actions.   4.   Adequacy Rule (23(a)(4)).   40.   Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants, including those owned and operated by  Defendants, operate as a chain concept, so that customers can obtain essentially the same food and  drink items, and experience the same customer service, at all Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants.   41.   Defendants trained their Buffalo Wild Wings employees, including Tip-Credit  Employees and store managers, to perform the same, or essentially the same, job duties. This identical  training is delivered regardless of the location where they are assigned to work.   42.   During the Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendants permitted servers to transfer  between their Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants.   43.   Defendants require their Tip-Credit Employees to perform non-tipped work each  shift in addition to serving customers.   44.   During the Plaintiffs’ employment, checklists were posted in Defendants’  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 11 of 21  PAGEID #: 11 12  restaurants with numerous non-tipped duties that servers and bartenders were required to perform in  addition to serving customers.    45.   During the Plaintiffs’ employment, managers verified that severs and bartenders  performed the non-tipped work covered in the checklists.   46.   When Plaintiffs and other Tip-Credit Employees performed non-tipped work, they  did not interact with customers and did not have the opportunity to earn tips.   47.   Defendants require Tip-Credit Employees to perform non-tipped work before their  restaurants are open to customers.   48.   Defendants require Tip-Credit Credit Employees to perform non-tipped work after  they are finished serving customers and/or their restaurants are closed to customers.   49.   During Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendants had no policies prohibiting Tip-Credit  Employees from performing certain types, or excessive amounts, of non-tipped work.   5.   Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Rule 23(b)(2)).   50.   During Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendants did not record or track the amount of  time Tip-credit Employees spent performing non-tipped work.   51.   Defendants use a standard point-of-sale system to record hours worked by Tip- Credit Employees at their Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants.   52.   Defendants analyze and evaluate information collected by their point-of-sale  system, including labor cost information, for each of their restaurants.   53.   Defendants’ managers at their restaurants are eligible to receive bonuses based, in  part, on meeting or exceeding certain labor cost targets.   54.   In their point-of-sale system, Defendants can create different “clock in” codes that  would allow their Tip-Credit Employees to clock in at the full minimum wage rate when performing  non-tipped work, while clocking in at a sub-minimum, tip-credit rate when serving customers.  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 12 of 21  PAGEID #: 12 13   55.   Defendants did not allow their Tip-Credit Employees to clock in at the full  minimum wage rate when performing the non-tipped work described in this Complaint, although  Defendants had the capacity to do so.   56.   Defendants also routinely clocked Plaintiffs and the putative class out and required  them to do significant work while clocked out, sometimes in excess of two hours at the close.    I. Defendants Violated the FLSA by Requiring Plaintiffs and Class Members to  Perform Substantial Non-Tip-Producing Tasks Without Being Paid Minimum Wage.    57.   Under the FLSA, as interpreted by the Department of Labor (the “DOL”),  employers may not take the tip credit for time the employee is engaged in a non-tipped job and  instead must pay their employees at the standard minimum wage. The DOL has formalized this  concept under the “Dual Jobs” regulation which states as follows:   Dual jobs. In some situations, an employee is employed in a dual job, as for example, where  a maintenance man in a hotel also serves as a waiter. In such a situation the employee . . . is  a tipped employee only with respect to his employment as a waiter. He is employed in two  occupations, and no tip credit can be taken for his hours of employment in his occupation of  maintenance man. Such a situation is distinguishable from that of a waitress who spends  part of her time cleaning and setting tables, toasting bread, making coffee and occasionally  washing dishes or glasses…   58.    The Dual Jobs regulation imposes both quantitative and qualitative restrictions on  the employer’s ability to take the tip credit for non-tip-producing tasks, as explained in the DOL’s  Field Operations Handbook (the “Handbook” or “FOH”).    59.    The quantitative restriction limits the amount of time an employee can spend on  tasks related to the tipped occupation, as follows:    6.   Predominance and Superiority of Class Action (Rule 23(b)(3)).   60.   29 CFR 531.56(e) permits the employer to take a tip credit for time spent in duties  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 13 of 21  PAGEID #: 13 14  related to the tipped occupation of an employee, even though such duties are not by themselves  directed toward producing tips, provided such related duties are incidental to the regular duties of the  tipped employees and are generally assigned to the tipped employee. For example, duties related to  the tipped occupation may include a server who does preparatory or closing activities, rolls silverware  and fills salt and pepper shakers while the restaurant is open, cleans and sets tables, makes coffee, and  occasionally washes dishes or glasses. FOH § 30d00(e)(2) (rev. 668, June 20, 2012).    61.   The Handbook continues: [W]here the facts indicate that tipped employees spend a  substantial amount of time (in excess of 20 percent of the hours worked in the tipped occupation in  the workweek) performing such related duties, no tip credit may be taken for the time spent in those  duties. All related duties count toward the 20 percent tolerance.    62.    This “20 percent tolerance,” which is one method of determining whether an  employee is effectively engaged in a dual jobs position, is referred to as the “20 Percent Rule.” Courts  have routinely utilized this quantitative standard.    63.   The qualitative aspect of the Dual Jobs regulation prohibits taking the tip credit for  work that is "not related to the tipped occupation. For example, maintenance work (e.g., cleaning  bathrooms and washing windows) are not related to the tipped occupation of a server; such jobs are  non-tipped occupations." FOH § 30d00(e)(4).    64.   Defendants instituted a policy requiring Plaintiffs and Class Members to work dual  jobs that included tipped tasks (directed toward producing tips) and substantial non-tip-producing  tasks (“Non-Tipped Work”), exceeding 20 percent of their time, for which they were not paid the  applicable minimum wage.    64. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, repeat and re-allege all allegations  above as though they are fully set forth herein.    65.   Such Non-Tipped Work for servers includes but is not limited to: setting up the  dining room areas, brewing beverages, cutting lemons, filling ice bins, baking bread, polishing and  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 14 of 21  PAGEID #: 14 15  stocking glassware, helping pack to-go orders, restocking salt/pepper and sugar caddies, pulling away  tables to clean under booths, cleaning the server alley, sweeping floors, placing and removing  silverware from dishwashing machine, polishing and rolling silverware, wiping wood, starting and  warming the oven, maintaining and cleaning sanitation buckets, and cleaning and setting floor mats.    65. At all relevant times, Defendants have been and continue to be an employer engaged in  interstate commerce, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).    66.   Such Non-Tipped Work for bartenders includes but is not limited to: setting up and  cleaning the bar area (front and back), stocking glassware, wiping and washing glassware; cleaning  sinks, keg coolers, gaskets, and ice baths; handling to-go orders for the restaurant; cashing out  servers; and performing server side work.    66. At all relevant times, Defendants employed, and/or continue to employ, Plaintiffs and  each of the Class Members within the meaning of the FLSA.    67. At all relevant times, Defendants had a uniform policy and practice of knowingly  permitting Plaintiffs and Class Members to work off the clock without compensation.    67.   Defendants have a policy and practice of paying Plaintiffs and Class Members, sub- minimum, tip-credit wages, even when Defendants require them to perform Non-Tipped Work that is  not related to their tipped occupation, such as baking bread and performing other tasks, including but  not limited to those previously set forth in this Complaint, not related to their tipped occupation.    68.   Even if the Non-Tipped Work Defendants require Plaintiff and Class Members to  perform was related to their tipped occupation, Defendants violate the FLSA by its policy and practice  of requiring Plaintiffs and Class Members to perform such work for more than 20 percent of their time  worked during the workweek.    68. Defendants’ policy and practice of not paying minimum wage for non-tip-producing  work led to Plaintiffs and Class Members working off the clock without compensation.    69. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members wages for off-the-clock work.   69.   Plaintiffs were required to perform substantial non-tip-producing tasks for more  than 20 percent of her hours in the workweek without being paid a minimum wage.    70. Defendants’ conduct constitutes willful violations of the FLSA within the meaning of 29  U.S.C. § 255(a).   Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 18 of 21  PAGEID #: 18 19   70.   Plaintiffs were also required to perform tasks that were unrelated to and not  incidental to her tip-producing occupation without being paid a minimum wage.    71. Due to Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiffs and the Class Members were damaged  and are entitled to recover from Defendants compensation for unpaid wages; an additional  equal amount as liquidated damages; and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of  this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   71.   Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and Class Members to  perform excessive and/or unrelated Non-Tipped Work while paying them sub-minimum, tip-credit  wages violates the FLSA.   Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 15 of 21  PAGEID #: 15 16  II. Defendants Violate the FLSA by Failing to Pay Plaintiffs and Class Members for  Off-the-clock Work.    72.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all the preceding paragraphs, as if fully set  forth herein.   72.   Defendants encourage Plaintiffs and Class Members to work off the clock by  limiting the hours that they are permitted to be clocked in.    73.  As alleged above, Plaintiffs and members of the Ohio Class were consistently and uniformly  not paid the minimum wage or overtime pay for all the work they performed during the  course of their employment with Defendants.  Defendants’ policy and practice was to force  Ohio Plaintiffs and members of the Ohio Class to work off the clock to cut costs and increase  profits.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct was neither inadvertent, nor de minimis, but  widespread, repeated and part of a pattern and practice of conduct affecting Ohio Plaintiffs  and all members of the Ohio Class.   73.   Defendants require Plaintiffs and Class Members to perform substantial non-tip- producing work when they are clocked in.    74.  Defendants permitted, consented, and had actual or constructive knowledge the Plaintiffs and  members of the Ohio Class were not receiving minimum wage or overtime pay because  Defendants knowingly required non tip-related labor to be done off the clock and while on  tipped wages.  Defendants also knowingly fabricated wage statements in order to make it  appear that the Plaintiffs and the Ohio Class were receiving minimum wage.     74.   Defendants have refused to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members minimum wage for  non-tip-producing work that exceeds 20 percent of the hours in a workweek.    75.   Plaintiffs and Class Members worked off the clock without pay, with the  knowledge, expectation, and acquiescence of Defendants.   75.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and the members of the Ohio Class have been  damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.  The Ohio Constitution contains a three-year  statute of limitations regardless of whether the violation was willful (the “Ohio Class  Period”). Therefore, the Ohio Plaintiffs and members of the Ohio Class are entitled to treble  damages and attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief, including penalties and interest, as  this Court deems just and appropriate.  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 19 of 21  PAGEID #: 19 20  Prayer for Relief  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated Tip-Credit  Employees, pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:  A.   For an order certifying that the First Two Claims for Relief of this Complaint may be  maintained as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and that prompt notice of  this action be issued to potential members of the opt-in FLSA Class, apprising them of the  pendency of this action, and permitting them to assert timely FLSA claims;  B.   For an order certifying that the Third Claim for Relief be maintained as a class action  pursuant to Rule 23 on behalf of the members of the Ohio Class who were either employed  or who performed work in the State of Ohio during the Ohio Class Period and that notice  of the pendency of this action be provided to members of the Ohio Class.  C.   Designation of Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives for the FLSA Class;  D.   Designation of the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives for the Ohio Class;  E.   Designation of Plaintiffs’ attorney as Class Counsel for both the FLSA Class and the  Ohio Class;   F.   A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under  appropriate state law;  G.   Appropriate equitable relief to remedy Defendants’ violations of state law, including but  not necessarily limited to an order enjoining Defendants from continuing its unlawful  practices;  H.   For an award of unpaid Federal minimum wages for each hour worked as required by the  76.   Defendants clocked Plaintiffs and Class Members out yet required them to remain to  complete multiple tasks, including but not limited to cleaning tables, mopping bathrooms, wiping  sinks and mirrors, detailing the bar, filling salt and pepper shakers, replacing ketchups, sweeping and  vacuuming carpets, mopping tile surfaces, cleaning dishes, restocking lids, cups, drink mixers, and  sugar packets, rotating the beer cooler, cleaning dish area, organizing keg cooler, carrying keg to the  cooler, wiping salt off the tables,    77.   The willful refusal to pay wages for off-the-clock work constitutes a violation of the  78.   Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if  fully set forth in this cause of action.   79.   This cause of action arises from Defendants’ violation of the FLSA for their failure  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 16 of 21  PAGEID #: 16 17  to pay minimum wages and overtime pay to Plaintiff and similarly-situated Tip-Credit Employees.   80.   Plaintiffs bring this cause of action as a collective action under the FLSA, § 216(b).   81.   Defendants were Plaintiffs’ “employer” as defined by the FLSA, § 203(d).   82.   Plaintiffs were Defendants’ “employee[s]” as defined by the FLSA, § 203(e)(1).    83.   During the entire course of their employment by Defendants, Plaintiffs were not  exempt from the minimum wage or overtime provisions of the FLSA.   84.   In one or more individual workweeks during their employment, each Plaintiffs’  average compensation (i.e. total weekly compensation divided by total weekly hours), excluding tips,  fell below minimum wage.   85.   Defendants are, individually and collectively, an “enterprise” as defined by the  FLSA, § 203(r)(1).   86.   Defendants are, individually and collectively, an enterprise(s) engaged in commerce  or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, § (203)(s)(1)(A).   87.   Defendants’ annual gross volume of sales made, or business done, has exceeded  $500,000 in each of the last three calendar years.   88.   Defendants’ individual Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant(s), including those operating  under the Defendant corporate entities are engaged in related activities performed for a common  business purpose, through unified operation or common control.    89.   Defendants violated the FLSA by requiring Plaintiffs and similarly-situated Tip- Credit Employees to perform non-tipped work that is unrelated to their tipped occupation, while  paying them less than minimum wage, such as: cleaning bathrooms, sweeping, mopping, or deck  scrubbing floors, washing dishes, and cleaning the restaurant.   90.   Defendants also violated the FLSA by requiring Plaintiffs and similarly-situated  Case: 2:17-cv-00476-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/17 Page: 17 of 21  PAGEID #: 17 18  Tip-Credit Employees to perform non-tipped work that, even if related to their tipped occupation,  exceeded twenty percent of their time worked in one or more individual workweeks without paying  them full minimum wage.   91.   Defendants violated the FLSA by making tip credit against the minimum wages of  Plaintiffs and similarly-situated Tip-Credit Employees without informing them of the tip credit  provisions of the FLSA.   92.   Defendants violated the FLSA by not paying overtime pursuant to the FLSA.     93.   Defendants’ violations of the FLSA were willful.  VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (Minimum Wage and  Overtime, On Behalf of Themselves and the Class)   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT - UNPAID WAGES (On  Behalf of Themselves and the Class)    VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II, §34A OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION - (On Behalf of  Themselves and the Ohio Class)   