10.  Defendant John Andrew Baio is the owner or operator of Pro Tree  Service.   11.  Defendants John Baio is involved in the daily operation of Defendant Pro  Tree Service including but not limited to:  a) hiring and firing employees  b) directing employees' work; and  c) exercising control over Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees'  schedule, payment, and other terms of employment.   12.  Plaintiff has worked as a laborer removing and disposing of trees for  public and private properties on behalf of Defendants from approximately February 2016  through approximately the end of April 2018.  4   13.  Plaintiff was paid $14.00 per hour by Defendants for approximately the  first year of his employment.   14.  Subsequent to the first year of his employment, Plaintiff was paid  approximately $16.00 per hour through the end of his employment.   15.  Throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees were regularly directed to work, and did in fact work, in excess of forty hours  per week.    16.  Throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees were compensated at their regular rate for all time worked, including all time  worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.   17.  Defendant’s failure to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees for all time worked in excess of forty hours per week at an overtime rate was a  violation of the FLSA and IMWL.    18.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were required to wear  uniforms while working for Defendants.   19.  Defendants deducted the cost of the uniforms from the weekly wages of  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.   20.  The deductions from the weekly wages from Plaintiff and other similarly  situated employees were made without the employee’s express written consent, freely  given at the time of the deduction.  21.  Plaintiff will seek to certify this case both as a collective action as to the  overtime claim arising under the FLSA (Count I) and as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.  5  Civ. P. Rule 23 for his state law overtime claim (Count II) arising under the IMWL, and  his state law unlawful deduction claim arising under the IWPCA (Count III).    22.  The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent with regard to his IMWL  overtime claim (Count II) is defined as: “Plaintiff and all other similarly situated  employees of Pro Tree Service and John Andrew Baio not exempt from the overtime  provisions of the IMWL from June 26, 2015 up to and including the date of judgment.”   23.  The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent with regard to his IWPCA  unlawful deduction claim (Count III) is defined as: “Plaintiff and all other similarly  situated employees of Pro Tree Service and John Andrew Baio who had deductions made  from their wages for the cost of uniforms from June 26, 2008 up to and including the date  of judgment.”   24.  Counts II and III are brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23 (a) and  (b) because:   a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable:   b. While the precise number of Class Members has not been determined at  this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have  employed more than 60 individuals in the IMWL Overtime Class during  the class period and in the IWPCA Unlawful Deduction class period;  c. There are questions of fact or law common to the class, which common  questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual  members. These common questions of law and fact include, without  limitation:  i.  Whether Defendants otherwise compensated Plaintiff and the  IMWL Class for all time worked at their regular rate in each work  week in which they worked in excess of forty (40) hours;  ii.  Whether Defendants made deductions from the wages of Plaintiff  and the IWPCA Uniform Deduction Class for uniforms; and  6  iii.  Whether Defendants obtained Plaintiff and the IWPCA Uniform  Deduction Class’ express written consent for such uniform  deductions freely given at the time the deduction was made.  d. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of  the Class members. Plaintiff’s Counsel is competent and experienced in  litigating wage and hour and other employment class actions;   e. The class representative and the members of the class have been equally  affected by Defendants’ failure to pay overtime wages for all compensable  time in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks;  f. The class representative and the members of the class have been equally  affected by Defendants’ deductions from pay for uniforms;  g. The class representative, class members and Defendants have a  commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedies sought and the  class representative are able to fairly and adequately represent the interest  of the class. If individual actions were required to be brought by each  member of the class injured or affected, the result would be a multiplicity  of actions creating a hardship on the class members, Defendants, and the  Court.   25.  Therefore, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this lawsuit.  26.  Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 25 of this  Complaint as though set forth herein.   27.  The matters set forth in this Count arise from Defendants’ violation of the  FLSA for their failure to pay non-exempt employees for all hours worked at their regular  rate of pay in individual work weeks in which they work in excess of forty (40) hours and  to pay them overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in such  work weeks.  7   28.  In the three years prior to the filing of this complaint, Defendants suffered  or permitted Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work without  compensation as described more fully in ¶¶ 9 – 20, supra,    29.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not exempt from the  overtime provisions of the FLSA.   30.  In individual work weeks in which Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours, they were entitled to be compensated at  their regular rate of pay for all time worked.    31.  Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees at their regular rate of pay for all time worked in individual workweeks in  which they worked in excess of forty (40) hours violated the FLSA.   32.  In individual work weeks in which Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours, they were entitled to be compensated at  the rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of  forty (40) hours.    33.  Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees at the rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay for all time worked  in excess of forty (40) hours violated the FLSA.   34.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are entitled to recover  unpaid wages and overtime wages as described herein for up to three (3) years prior to  Plaintiffs filing their complaint because Defendants’ violation was willful.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated  employees, prays for a judgment against Defendants as follows:  8  A.  That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a collective  action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;  B.  A judgment in the amount of unpaid regular wages for all the time  Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked in individual work  weeks in which they worked in excess of forty (40) hours for Defendants;  C.  A judgment in the amount of unpaid overtime wages for all the time  Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked in excess of forty (40)  hours in individual work weeks for Defendants;  D.  Liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid wages;   E.  That the Court declare the Defendants violated the FLSA;  F.  That the Court enjoin the Defendants from continuing to violate the  35.  Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 34 of this  Complaint as though set forth herein.   36.  The matters set forth in this Count arise from Defendants’ violation of the  IMWL for their failure to pay non-exempt employees for all hours worked at their regular  rate of pay in individual work weeks in which they work in excess of forty (40) hours and  to pay them overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in such  work weeks.  9   37.  In the three years prior to the filing of this complaint, Defendants suffered  or permitted Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees to work without  compensation as described more fully in ¶¶ 9 – 19, supra.    38.  Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were not exempt from the  overtime provisions of the IMWL.   39.  In individual work weeks in which Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours, they were entitled to be compensated at  their regular rate of pay for all time worked.    40.  In individual work weeks in which Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours, they were entitled to be compensated at  the rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of  forty (40) hours.    41.  Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees at the rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay for all time worked  in excess of forty (40) hours violated the IMWL.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated  employees, prays for a judgment against Defendants as follows:  A.  That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class  action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b);  B.  A judgment in the amount of unpaid regular wages for all the time  Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked in individual work  weeks in which they worked in excess of forty (40) hours for Defendants;  C.  Liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid wages;   D.  That the Court declare the Defendants violated the IMWL;   10  E.  That the Court enjoin the Defendants from continuing to violate the  42.  Plaintiff incorporates and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 42 of this  Complaint as though set forth herein.   43.  The matters set forth in this Count arise from Defendants’ violation of the  IWPCA for deducting the cost of uniforms from Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees’ weekly wages without express written consent, freely given at the time of the  deduction as described in more detail in ¶¶ 9 – 20, supra.   44.  In the ten years prior to the filing of this claim the Plaintiff and similarly  situated employees had deductions made from their weekly wages for the purpose of  paying for uniforms required by the Defendants.   45.  In the ten years prior to filing this claim the Plaintiff and similarly situated  employees had this money deducted from their paychecks without express written  consent, freely given at the time of the deduction.   46.  The deduction for uniforms was not  a. required by law;  b. to the benefit of the employee; or   c. in response to a valid wage assignment or wage deduction order.  11   47.  The deductions made from Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees’ earned wages for the costs of uniforms required by the employer violated the  9.  Defendant Pro Tree Service is a corporation specializing in landscaping.   Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act  Overtime Wages  Section 216(b) Collective Action   Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act  Unauthorized Uniform Deductions   Class Action   Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law  Overtime Wages  Class Action  