13.  Defendant Citizen’s Taxi Dispatch is a corporation in the business of providing  student transportation services to school districts in and around DuPage County, Illinois.   14.  Defendants maintain contracts with school districts in DuPage County, Illinois,  including an agreement with Community Unit School District 200, which serves the  communities of Wheaton, Illinois and Warrenville, Illinois.  4   15.  Defendants also provide general taxi services to individuals in and around the  DuPage County, Illinois area.  The vast majority of the business involves servicing its contracts  with school districts.   16.  As part of its contracts with school districts, Defendants agrees to provide  transportation to students in the school district requiring transportation from the student’s  residence to a school, or vice versa.   17.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from February 29, 2016 through  September 2, 2016.   18.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants primarily to transport students to and from  school pursuant to Defendants’ contracts with the school districts.   19.  As a driver, Plaintiff performed a core function of Defendants’ business.   20.  Defendants assigned Plaintiff a weekly schedule, which often did not change from  week-to-week.  This frequently resulted in Plaintiff picking-up and dropping-off the same  students at the same times each week.   21.  If a driver fails to complete a route as part of the driver’s schedule, he or she is  subject to discipline, up to and including termination.   22.  As a condition of employment, Defendants require their drivers to sign a contract  with Citizen’s Taxi Dispatch, which mischaracterizes the driver as an “independent contractor.”   These contracts are designed to conceal the true nature of the relationship between Defendants  and their Illinois delivery drivers – that of employer and employee.   23.  These contracts, drafted by Defendants, are contracts of adhesion.  Drivers have  no ability to negotiate the terms of the contracts.  5   24.  Despite labelling the drivers as “independent contractors,” Defendants retain the  absolute right to control and direct the work of its drivers.   25.  Defendants control the manner in which drivers perform their jobs.  For example:  a.  All drivers are required to complete a qualification process as a  precondition of employment, including a detailed background check and drug screen;  b.  Drivers are subject to random drug testing throughout their employment  with the company;  c.  Defendants assign drivers a weekly schedule, which largely does not  change from week-to-week;  d.  Drivers have no authority to refuse or negotiate their route assignment;  e.  If a driver fails to complete a route as part of the driver’s schedule, he or  she is subject to discipline, up to and including termination;  f.  If a driver is unable to drive a pre-assigned route on a particular day, he or  she must find a replacement or substitute approved by Defendants;  g.  Defendants require drivers to pick-up and drop-off students at precise  times;  h.  Drivers are not permitted to change or alter their weekly scheduled routes;  i.  Defendants often contact drivers during their shift to check on their  location or the status of their assigned schedule; and  j.  Client complaints are communicated through Defendants rather than  directly to drivers.   26.  Defendants do not require drivers to obtain any certifications or licenses specific  to transporting individuals or students.  6   27.  Defendants require their drivers to rent a vehicle from Defendants to be able to  fulfill its contracts with school districts.  Defendants deduct the driver’s weekly rent from his or  her paycheck.    28.  Defendants pay the insurance for the vehicles that the drivers use.   29.  Defendants retain the right to discipline or terminate drivers at will, as would an  employer.   30.  Defendants negotiate the price of routes directly with school districts.   31.  Defendants apparently compensate drivers per mile driven, but the rate paid  depends on the route taken.  Defendants do not explain how the different rates are calculated or  determined.   32.  Defendants deducted certain expenses from drivers’ paychecks, including but not  limited to:  a.  Weekly car rental payments;  b.  Tickets paid by the company; and  c.  Towing payments in retrieving the vehicle from a discharged employee.   33.  Drivers were required to pay Defendants’ operating expenses, all of which should  have been paid by Defendants, including, but not limited to:  a.  Weekly car rental payments;  b.  Delivery vehicle maintenance and repairs;  c.  Illinois toll payments; and  d.  Fuel.  7   34.  Drivers regularly work in excess of forty (40) hours per week.  Drivers classified  as independent contractors are not compensated at an overtime rate of pay for work in excess of  forty (40) hours per week.  35.  Plaintiff seeks to prosecute the case on behalf of current and former Citizen’s  Taxi Dispatch drivers who were improperly classified as independent contractors.   36.  Plaintiff brings the FLSA claims a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and  the remaining claims as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.   37.   For both collective and class action purposes, the proposed class consists of:  All persons who have provided driver services directly to Citizen’s Taxi Dispatch  in the State of Illinois at any time during the relevant statutory period, who were  not treated as employees of Citizen’s Taxi Dispatch.   38.  The relevant time period for Count I and II is for work performed within the past  three (3) years preceding the filing of this Complaint.  For Count III, the relevant time period is  for work performed within the past ten (10) years preceding this lawsuit’s filing to the day of  trial.  For Count IV, the relevant time period is for work performed within the past five (5) years  preceding this lawsuit’s filing.   39.  The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members of the  Class is impracticable.     40.  Common issues of law and fact predominate the claims of the entire Plaintiff  Class.  Specifically, all claims are based on a finding that Defendants misclassified its drivers as  independent contractors when they were in fact employees.  In short, the claims of the named  Plaintiff are identical to the claims of the class members.  8   41.  The named Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class because all potential  plaintiffs were subject to Defendants’ uniform practices and policies.  Further, the named  Plaintiff and the potential class plaintiffs have suffered the same type of economic damages as a  result of Defendants’ practices and policies.   42.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class.   Plaintiff’s counsel is competent and experienced in litigating large wage and hour class and  collective actions.   43.  A class action is the only realistic method available for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  The expense and burden of individual litigation makes it  impractical for members of the Class to seek redress individually for the wrongful conduct  alleged herein.  Were each individual member required to bring a separate lawsuit, the resulting  multiplicity of proceedings would cause undue hardship and expense for the litigants and the  Court and create the risk of inconsistent rulings which could be contrary to the interest of justice  and equity.  44.  Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43 of this  Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.   45.  Defendants failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks in violation  of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201.     46.   For example, during the week beginning April 4, 2016, Plaintiff worked  approximately fifty-six (56) hours for Defendants.  During the week beginning May 16, 2016,  9  Plaintiff worked approximately fifty-four (54) hours for Defendants.  Plaintiff was not paid a rate  of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of forty (40) in  these weeks and all other weeks he worked over forty (40) hours.   47.  During the course of their employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and others  similarly situated drivers were not exempt from the maximum hour provisions of the FLSA, 29  51.  Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 50 of this  Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.   52.  Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at the overtime rate for all hours worked  in excess of forty (40) per work week in violation of IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/1 et seq.   53.  Plaintiff seeks all overtime and other wages due, liquidated damages, statutory  damages, prejudgment interest and any other damages due.  54.  Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 of this  Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.   55.  Defendants violate the IWPCA, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 115/1 et seq., by making  unlawful deductions taken by Defendants from their pay.   56.  Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages as well as reimbursement for all unlawful  deductions taken by Defendants from their pay.  57.  Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 56 of this  Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.   58.  As a result of Defendants’ mischaracterization of Plaintiff and those similarly  situated as “independent contractors,” they are required to pay substantial sums of money for  work-related expenses, including but not limited to weekly vehicle rent payments, Illinois toll  payments, and delivery vehicle maintenance and repairs.   59.  By misclassifying its employees as “independent contractors,” and further by  requiring those employees to pay Defendants’ own expenses, Defendants have been unjustly  enriched.  Illinois Minimum Wage Law  (Class Action under Federal Rule of Procedure 23)   Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act  10  (Class Action under Federal Rule of Procedure 23)   Unjust Enrichment  (Class Action under Federal Rule of Procedure 23)   Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act – Overtime Wages  (Collective Action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b))  