(Brought Individually and as a Class Action Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)  Violations of Colorado Minimum Wage Order   Number 35, 7 Colo. Code Regs. § 1103-1(4)  (Brought Individually and as a Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b))  Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.  FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR ALL OVERTIME HOURS WORKED   (Brought Individually and as a Class Action Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)   Violations of Colorado Wage Claim Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-4-109  FAILURE TO PAY EARNED WAGES   15.  Defendant was the “employer” of Sales Managers within the meaning of the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).    16.  Defendant is an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or  business done exceeds $500,000.00.   18.  Sales Managers’ primary duty was selling products at Defendant’s stores.   19.  Sales Managers’ primary duty was not management, and did not otherwise  fall within any exemptions to overtime pay under the FLSA or Colorado law.   20.  Defendant suffered and permitted Sales Managers to work more than forty  (40) hours per week.   21.  Defendant was aware, or should have been aware, that Sales Managers  were regularly working in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek.    22.  Defendant willfully misclassified Sales Managers as exempt from overtime  pay and only paid them for up to forty (40) hours in a workweek, but not more, despite the  fact that they typically worked significantly more hours.   23.  Defendant willfully failed to pay Sales Managers overtime pay for hours  worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek at a rate not less than time-and-a-half (1.5)  of their regular rate of pay.  24.  Plaintiff Robinson brings this action on behalf of himself and other  employees similarly situated as authorized under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (the  “FLSA Collective”):  All persons who work or worked for Defendant as Sales  Managers and any other employees performing the same or  similar duties for Defendant, within the United States, at any  time from three years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the  final disposition of this case.   26.  Defendant willfully misclassified Plaintiff and members of the FLSA  Collective as exempt from overtime pay and only paid them for up to forty (40) hours in a  workweek, but not more, despite the fact that they typically worked significantly more  hours.   27.  Defendant’s conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, was willful and in bad  faith, and has caused significant damages to Plaintiff Robinson and the FLSA Collective.   28.  Defendant is liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate  Plaintiff Robinson and the FLSA Collective, and as such, notice should be sent to the  members of the FLSA Collective. There are numerous similarly situated current and  former employees of Defendant who have been denied overtime pay in violation of the  FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of a Court-supervised notice of the present  lawsuit and the opportunity to join. Those similarly situated employees are known to  Defendant and are readily identifiable through Defendant’s records.  29.  Plaintiff Robinson alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in  the preceding paragraphs.   31.  Numerosity: The Proposed Colorado Rule 23 Class is so numerous that  joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff Robinson is informed and believes, and  on that basis alleges, that during the relevant time period, Defendant employed over forty  (40) Sales Managers in Colorado who satisfy the definition of the Colorado Rule 23 Class.  The names and addresses of the Colorado Rule 23 Class Members are available to the  Defendant. Notice can be provided to Colorado Rule 23 Class members via first-class  mail and/or e-mail using techniques and a form of notice similar to those customarily used  in class action lawsuits of this nature.    32.  Typicality: Plaintiff Robinson’s claims are typical of the Colorado Rule 23  Class Members. Plaintiff Robinson, like other Colorado Rule 23 Class Members, was  subjected to Defendant’s common, unlawful policies, practices, and procedures. The  claims of Plaintiff Robinson are typical of the claims of the Colorado Rule 23 Class  Members who Defendant misclassified as exempt from overtime pay. Defendant’s  common course of unlawful conduct has caused Plaintiff Robinson and similarly situated  Colorado Rule 23 Class Members, to sustain the same or similar injuries and damages  caused by the same practices of Defendant including not receiving overtime  compensation. Plaintiff’s claims are thereby representative of and co-extensive with the  claims of the Colorado Rule 23 Class Members.   34.  Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair  and efficient adjudication of this controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour  litigation where individual Plaintiff lacks the financial resources to vigorously prosecute  separate lawsuits in federal court against large corporate defendants, and fear of  retaliation and blackballing in their industry. Prosecuting dozens of identical individual  lawsuits statewide does not promote judicial efficiency, equity, or consistency in judicial  results.   36.  This case is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)  because prosecution of actions by or against individual members of the class would result  in inconsistent or varying adjudications and create the risk of incompatible standards of  conduct for Defendant. Further, adjudication of each individual member’s claim as a  separate action would be dispositive of the interest of other individuals not party to this  action, impeding their ability to protect their interests.   38.  Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the Proposed Colorado  Rule 23 Class to the extent required by Rule 23. The names, e-mail addresses, and  mailing addresses of the members of the Proposed Colorado Rule 23 Class are available  from Defendant.  39.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   40.  29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) provides:  [N]o employer shall employ any of his employees who in any  workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of  goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged  in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, for  a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee  receives compensation for his employment in excess of the  hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half  times the regular rate at which she is employed.   41.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective members regularly worked more than forty  (40) hours per workweek.   43.  Defendant’s conduct and practices, described herein, were willful,  intentional, unreasonably, arbitrary, and in bad faith.    44.  Because Defendant willfully violated the FLSA, a three (3) year statute of  limitations shall apply to such violation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   45.  As a result of Defendant’s uniform and common policies and practices  described above, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective members were illegally deprived of  overtime wages earned, in such amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to  recovery of such total unpaid amounts, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees,  costs and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b).  52.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   53.  The CWCA defines wages as “all amounts for labor or service performed  by employees . . . if the labor or service to be paid for is performed personally by the  person demanding payment.” C.R.S. § 8-4-101(9).    54.  Under the CWCA, if an employee has been terminated, or quits or resigns  from employment with unpaid wages remaining due, then that employee may submit a  written demand for wages due. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-4-109(3)(a).    55.  An employee is entitled to certain statutory penalties under CWCA if the  employer does not make a legal tender of such wages in response to the written demand.  Id. at § 109(3)(b).    57.  Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment on or around June 20, 2019.   58.  At the time of his termination, Plaintiff was owed unpaid overtime wages as  a result of the violations of the FLSA and Colorado Minimum Wage Order alleged herein.   59.  The undersigned firm served a written demand on behalf of Plaintiff and the  Rule 23 Class, seeking their unpaid overtime wages.   60.  Defendant confirmed receipt of the demand but has not made a legal tender  of the unpaid overtime wages claimed in Plaintiff’s written demand.   61.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the CWCA, Plaintiff and the Rule  Class are entitled to their unpaid overtime wages, as well as civil penalties, reasonable  attorneys’ fees, and costs pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-4-109. 