15.  Plaintiff was employed as an exotic dancer by Shangri La West for the period of about  2017 through about 2019.   16.  During the period of Plaintiff’s employment, the number of shifts Plaintiff worked  varied from week to week.   17.  During the period of Plaintiff’s employment, the exact number of hours Plaintiff  worked varied from week to week.   18.  On information and belief, Defendant has possession of time and/or sign in “house fee”  payment records for Plaintiff and all other exotic dancers employed by Defendant during the  relevant period.   19.  At all times, Defendant had actual knowledge of all hours Plaintiff and all other exotic  dancers worked each shift through sign in or tip-in sheets, DJ records, and shift-managers  monitoring and supervising Plaintiff’s work duties and the work duties of other exotic dancers at  Shangri La West.      20.  At no time during Plaintiff’s period of employment did Defendant ever pay Plaintiff or  any other exotic dancers any wages for hours that Plaintiff and other exotic dancers worked each  week.  USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00006-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 01/03/20   page 3 of 12 4   21.  At all times relevant, Defendant totally failed to pay wages or any kind of compensation  to Plaintiff and all other exotic dancers for work duties performed.    22.  At all times relevant, Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and all other exotic dancers at  Shangri La West as independent contractors when these individuals should have been classified  under the FLSA and IMWL as employees.   23.  At all times, Defendant controlled all aspects of the job duties Plaintiff and all other  exotic dancers performed inside Shangri La West through employment rules and workplace  policies.     24.  At all times, Defendant controlled the method by which Plaintiff and all other exotic  dancers could earn money at Shangri La West by establishing dance orders, setting customer  prices on private and semi-private exotic dances, and setting private and semi-private dance  specials and promotions for customers.    25.  At all times, Defendant required Plaintiff and other exotic dancers to perform private and  semi-private dances under the pricing guidelines, policies, procedures, and promotions set  exclusively by Defendant.   26.  Defendant hired Plaintiff and all other exotic dancers and had the ability to discipline  them, fine them, fire them, and adjust their work schedules.     27.  Defendant, through supervisors and managers, supervised the duties of Plaintiff and all  other exotic dancers to make sure their job performance was of sufficient quality.   28.  Defendant conducted initial interviews and vetting procedures for Plaintiff and other  exotic dancers and, at Shangri La West’s sole discretion, Defendant’s management and/or  ownership could deny any Plaintiff or any other dancer access or ability to dance and/or work at  Shangri La West.  USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00006-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 01/03/20   page 4 of 12 5   29.  At all times, Defendant had the right to suspend or send Plaintiff or other exotic dancers  home and away from Shangri La West if Plaintiff or other dancers violated rules or policies or if  Defendant’s ownership or management, at its discretion, did not want Plaintiff or any other  dancer at Shangri La West.     30.  As a condition of employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and other dancers were not  required to have or possess any requisite certification, education, or specialized training.   31.  At all times relevant, Defendant was in the business of operating a night club featuring  exotic dancers and at all times it was the job duty of Plaintiff and each other exotic dancer to  perform as exotic dancers for Defendant’s customers.   32.  In addition to failing to pay Plaintiff and all other exotic dancers any wages for hours  worked, Defendant required Plaintiff and all other exotic dancers to pay Shangri La West or its  ownership or management a house fee or kickback of $25.00-$50.00 or more for each shift  Plaintiff and the other exotic dancers worked.   33.  At all times during the relevant period, without legal excuse or justification, Defendant  regularly and customarily kept and/or assigned to management tips and gratuities Plaintiff and  other exotic dancers received from customers.   34.  For at least the past twenty (20) years, gentlemen’s clubs like Shangri La West have been  publically sued for misclassifying exotic dancers as independent contractors and failing to pay  minimum wage compensation to exotic dancers as required by the FLSA and state wage and  hour laws.   35.  On information and belief, Defendant and its management had actual or constructive  knowledge that for at least the past twenty (20) years, there have been ongoing or past litigation  by exotic dancers against gentlemen’s clubs like Shangri La West in which the exotic dancers  USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00006-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 01/03/20   page 5 of 12 6  challenged the so-called independent contractor classification and otherwise sought to recover  unpaid wages and damages under the FLSA state wage and hour laws.   36.  On information and belief, Defendant and its management had actual or constructive  knowledge that Plaintiff and other exotic dancers at Shangri La West were employees and not  independent contractors and were owed minimum wage compensation under the FLSA and the  38.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.     39.  The Rule 23 Class is defined in this matter as all individuals, who at any time during the  relevant time period, worked as an exotic dancer for Defendant, but were designated as an  independent contractor and therefore, were not paid minimum wage compensation as required by  the IMWL (hereinafter, “the Class”).   40.  On information and belief, the Class are believed to exceed fifty (50) current and former  exotic dancers at Shangri La West and is therefore so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.    41.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any  questions solely affecting individual members, including, but not limited to:  USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00006-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 01/03/20   page 6 of 12 7  i.  Whether Defendant violated the IMWL by classifying all exotic dancers at  Shangri La West as "independent contractors," as opposed to employees, and not  paying them any minimum wages;  ii.  Whether Defendant unlawfully required class members to split their tips with  Defendant and and/or Defendant’s managers;  iii.  Whether the monies given to dancers by patrons when they perform private and  semi-private dances are gratuities or "service fees.”  iv.  Whether Defendant violated the IMWL; and  v.  The amount of damages and other relief (including statutory liquidated damages)  to which Plaintiff and the Class are entitled.   42.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class.    43.  Plaintiff, like other members of the Class, was misclassified as an independent contractor  and denied her rights to wages and gratuities by Defendant under the IMWL.    44.  Defendant’s misclassification of Plaintiff was done pursuant to a common business  practice which affected all Class members in a similar way.    45.  The named Plaintiff and the undersigned counsel are adequate representatives of the  Class.    46.  Given Plaintiff’s loss, Plaintiff has the incentive and is committed to the prosecution of  this action for the benefit of the Class.    47.  Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic to those of the Class or that would cause  them to act adversely to the best interests of the Class.    48.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in class and collective actions and, in  particular, litigation of wage and hour disputes.  USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00006-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 01/03/20   page 7 of 12 8   49.  This action is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ .P. 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and  23(c)(4) because the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would  create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the  Class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.   50.  This action is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because  questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting only  individual members of the Class and because a class action is superior to other methods for the  fair and efficient adjudication of this action.  51.  Plaintiff is pursuing this lawsuit as collective action under FLSA Section 216(b) on  behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals who at any time during the relevant  time period worked for Defendant as an exotic dancer and was designated as an independent  contractor and was not paid minimum wage compensation as required by the FLSA (hereinafter,  “the Collective”).   52.  Plaintiff and the members of the Collective are similarly situated because each were (1)  improperly classified as independent contractors; (2) were not paid any wages by Defendant for  hours worked; (3) were victims of tip theft whereby Defendant kept and/or assigned to  management their tips and gratuities received from customers; (4) were required to pay per-shift  house fee or kickback to Defendant for each shift worked; and (5) were not paid wages at or  above the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 for each hour worked.   53.  Plaintiff’s damages are substantially similar to other members of the Collective because,  under the FLSA, each are owed (1) a return of all house fee kickback payments made to  Defendant for each shift worked; (2) reimbursement of all tips and gratuities taken and/or  USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00006-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 01/03/20   page 8 of 12 9  assigned by Defendant and/or Defendant’s management; (3) payment for all hours worked in an  amount equal to the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 per hour; plus (4) statutory liquidated  damages as provided by Federal law for Defendant’s failure to pay minimum wage  compensation as required by the FLSA.      54.  On information and belief, Defendant has employed at least fifty (50) current and former  exotic dancers at Shangri La West in the past three (3) years.    55.  On information and belief, Defendant is in custody, possession, and control of identifying  records relating to all current and former exotic dancers employed by Defendant at Shangri La  West in the past three (3) years.  56.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set  forth herein.   57.  The FLSA required Defendant to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic dancers  at an hourly rate at least equal to the Federal Minimum Wage.   58.  The FLSA required that Defendant allow Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic  dancers to keep all tips and gratuities received from customers.   59.  As set forth above, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic  dancers at hourly rates in compliance with the FLSA Federal Minimum Wage requirements.     60.  Without legal excuse or justification, Defendant kept and/or assigned to management tips  and gratuities received by Plaintiff and other exotic dancers and belonging to Plaintiff and other  exotic dancers.  USDC IN/ND case 1:20-cv-00006-HAB-SLC   document 1   filed 01/03/20   page 9 of 12 10   61.  Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic dancers as required  by the FLSA was willful and intentional and was not in good faith.   62.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set  forth herein.   63.  The IMWL required Defendant to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic  dancers at an hourly rate at least equal to the Indiana Minimum Wage.   64.  The IMWL required that Defendant allow Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic  dancers to keep all tips and gratuities received from customers.   65.  As set forth above, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic  dancers at hourly rates in compliance with the IMWL Indiana Minimum Wage requirements.     66.  Without legal excuse or justification, Defendant kept and/or assigned to management tips  and gratuities received by Plaintiff and other exotic dancers and belonging to Plaintiff and other  exotic dancers.   67.  Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic dancers as required  by the IMWL was willful and intentional and was not in good faith.   VIOLATION OF THE FLSA  (Failure to Pay Statutory Minimum Wages)   VIOLATION OF INDIANA MINIMUM WAGE LAW   (Failure to Pay Statutory Minimum Wage)  