(Against the City of El Cajon Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b))  1. That Notice be given to present and former employees of the City informing them of their right to join -- without retaliation -- in that portion of this action brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 215(a)(3) and 216(b);  10. “The ‘regular rate’ is defined as ‘all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee . . . .”    (Flores v. City of San Gabriel (9th Cir. 2016) 824 F.3d 890, 895, quoting 29 U.S.C., § 207(e).)    11. “The FLSA provides a private cause of action for employees to seek unpaid wages owed to them under the provisions of [29 U.S.C. section] 216(b).”  (Flores v. City of San Gabriel (9th Cir. 2016) 824 F.3d 890, 895.)   12. Each of the plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in many seven-day work weeks.  Plaintiff Mike Murphy worked more than 40 hours in 80 or more work weeks since April 9, 2015.  Plaintiff Joshua Pittsley worked more than 40 hours in at least 85 work weeks since April 9, 2015.  The plaintiffs who have consented to join this case have also worked more than 40 hours in many seven-day work weeks during the three years preceding April 9, 2014.  13. During the work weeks that the plaintiffs worked overtime (i.e., more than 40 hours), the City failed to correctly pay overtime to the plaintiffs as required by the FLSA.  Specifically, the City failed to correctly calculate the regular rate of pay of the plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, during those work weeks, because the City failed to include “all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the [plaintiffs]” in the regular rate calculation.    14. The City’s failure to correctly calculate the regular rate during those work weeks was caused by, among other things, failing to include cash paid to the plaintiffs, and other similarly situated, in lieu of providing or paying medical and related insurance premiums under the City’s flexible benefits plan.  (Flores v. City of San Gabriel (9th Cir. 2016) 824 F.3d 890 [requiring such payments to be included in the “regular rate”].)  The City also failed to include other remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, in the regular rate of pay of those plaintiffs and those similarly situated.  16. The City’s violation of the FLSA set forth herein was “willful” because, based on information and belief, the City took no affirmative action to assure compliance with the FLSA requirements.  (Flores v. City of San Gabriel (9th Cir. 2016) 824 F.3d 890, 906-07.) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following:  2. That judgment be entered against the City in the amounts respectively due the plaintiffs and other employees and former employees of the City similarly situated for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and interest as the Court may determine pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b);  3. That pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 217 a permanent injunction be entered against the  City restraining further violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, among others;  4. Attorney’s fees, costs and prejudgment interest pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);  5. For such additional and further relief as this Court may deem just. Dated:   April 9, 2018 s/Michael A. Conger Attorney for Plaintiffs E-Mail: congermike@aol.com