(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (R.C. § 4111.03 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (R.C. § 4113.5 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO  PROMPT PAY ACT)   18.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   19.  During their employment with Defendant, Named Plaintiffs and other similarly  situated employees were not fully and properly paid for all of their compensable hours worked  because Defendant did not properly calculate their regular rate of pay for the purposes of  meeting the minimum requirements set forth in the FLSA, resulting in unpaid overtime wages.   20.  Defendant pays Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees an  hourly wage for hours worked (hereinafter “Base Hourly Wage”).   21.  Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees frequently worked in  excess of 40 hours in a workweek.   22.  In addition to the Base Hourly Wage, Defendant pays its employees with an  additional form of remuneration, a bonus or bonuses and/or commissions based on their  performance, which should have been included in the calculation of employees’ regular rate of  pay for overtime compensation (hereinafter “Additional Remuneration”). See 29 C.F.R. §  778.211(c).   23.  During the last three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Named  Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees regularly received their Base Hourly Wage and  Additional Remuneration as described above in various workweeks.   24.  When Defendant paid Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees  both their Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration, Defendant failed to properly  calculate its employees’ regular rate of pay for the purposes of overtime pay because Defendant  did not include the Additional Remuneration in its regular rate calculations. The FLSA and Ohio  Wage Act required Defendant to pay overtime compensation to its employees at the rate of one  and one-half times their regular rate for the hours they worked in excess of forty. 29 U.S.C. §  38.  Named Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a  representative action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees of the  opt-in class, consisting of:  All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant who  received a Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration during any  workweek that they worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning  three years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and continuing  through the date of final disposition of this case (the “§ 216(b) Collective  Class” or the “§ 216(b) Collective Class Members”).   39.  This FLSA claim is brought as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b) as to claims for overtime compensation withheld in violation of the FLSA, liquidated  damages, and attorneys’ fees.   40.  In addition to the Named Plaintiffs, the putative § 216(b) Collective Class  Members have been denied overtime compensation due to Defendant’s company-wide payroll  policy and practice of not fully and properly compensating its employees at the proper overtime  rate during workweeks when they worked more than forty (40) hours per workweek and were  paid their Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration. Defendant failed to meet the  minimum requirements of the FLSA by not paying Named Plaintiffs and the putative § 216(b)  Collective Class Members overtime at a rate of at least one and one-half times their regular rate  of pay, as that phrase is defined under the FLSA, for all overtime hours worked. The Named  Plaintiffs are representative of those other similarly situated employees and are acting on behalf  of their interests as well as their own in bringing this action.   41.  The identities of the putative § 216(b) Class Members are known to Defendant  and are readily identifiable through Defendant’s payroll records. These individuals may readily  be notified of this action, and allowed to opt into it pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the  purpose of collectively adjudicating their claims for overtime compensation, liquidated damages,  attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA.   42.  The net effect of Defendant’s policies and practices is that Defendant willfully  failed to fully and properly pay Named Plaintiffs and § 216(b) Collective Class Members  overtime wages. Thus, Defendant enjoyed substantial ill-gained profits at the expense of the  Named Plaintiffs and § 216(b) Collective Class Members.  B. Fed.R.Civ. P. 23 Class Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages.   43.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   44.  Named Plaintiffs bring their Ohio Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23  as a class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated of the following class,  consisting of:  All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant  working in Ohio who received a Base Hourly Wage and Additional  Remuneration during any workweek that they worked over 40 hours in  any workweek beginning three years preceding the filing date of this  Complaint and continuing through the date of final disposition of this case  (the “Ohio Rule 23 Class,” the “Rule 23 Class,” or the “Ohio Rule 23  Class Members”).   45.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiffs and those Ohio Rule 23 Class Members  worked more than forty (40) hours per workweek but were not correctly compensated at a rate of  at least one and one-half times their correct regular rate of pay, as that phrase is defined under  the Ohio Wage Act, for all hours worked in excess of 40 because of Defendant’s policy and  practice of not fully and properly compensating its employees at the proper overtime rate during  workweeks when they received Additional Remuneration defined herein.   46.  The Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.   47.  Named Plaintiffs are members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and their claims for  unpaid wages are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   48.  Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the Ohio Rule 23 Class and  the interests of all members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   49.  Named Plaintiffs have no interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict with those  interests of the Ohio Rule 23 Class that they have undertaken to represent.   50.  Named Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced class action counsel  who can ably represent the interests of the entire Ohio Rule 23 Class.   51.  Questions of law and fact are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   52.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because individual  actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish  incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant with respect to its non-exempt employees.   53.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as Defendant  acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Ohio Rule 23 Class, making  appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule  23 Class as a whole.   54.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of  law and facts common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual  members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.    55.  Questions of law and fact that are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class include, but  are not limited to: (a) whether Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act by failing to pay the Ohio  Rule 23 Class their correct overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week  as a result of Defendant’s failure to properly calculate the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ regular  rate of pay when they received Additional Remuneration; (b) whether Defendant kept accurate  records of the amount of time the Ohio Rule 23 Class was working each day; (c) whether  Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Wage Act were knowing and willful; (d) what amount of  unpaid and/or withheld overtime compensation is due to the Named Plaintiffs and other members  of the Ohio Rule 23 Class on account of Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Wage Act; and (e)  what amount of prejudgment interest is due to Ohio Rule 23 Class members on the overtime or  other compensation which was withheld or not paid to them.    56.  A class action is superior to individual actions for the fair and efficient  adjudication of Named Plaintiffs’ and the Ohio Rule 23 Class’s claims and will prevent undue  financial, administrative, and procedural burdens on the parties and the Court. Named Plaintiffs  and counsel are not aware of any pending Ohio litigation on behalf of the Ohio Rule 23 Class, as  defined herein, or on behalf of any individual alleging a similar claim. Because the damages  sustained by individual members are modest compared to the costs of individual litigation, it  would be impractical for class members to pursue individual litigation against the Defendant to  vindicate their rights. Certification of this case as a class action will enable the issues to be  adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.  57.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   58.  This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiffs on  behalf of themselves and the § 216(b) Collective Class Members.   59.  During the relevant time period preceding this Complaint, Defendant employed  the Named Plaintiffs and the § 216(b) Collective Class Members.   60.  Named Plaintiffs and the § 216(b) Collective Class Members were paid on an  hourly basis when working in non-exempt positions.   61.  Named Plaintiffs and the § 216(b) Collective Class Members worked in excess of  40 hours in a workweek.   62.  The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for every hour  worked in a workweek.  See 29 U.S.C. § 206(b).   63.  The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees receive overtime compensation of  their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. See 29 U.S.C.  § 207(a)(1).   64.  Under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e), “regular rate” of pay shall be broadly deemed to  include all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee like the type of  Named Plaintiffs and the § 216(b) Collective Class Members. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(e); see also  73.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   74.  This claim is brought under Ohio law, which incorporates the FLSA without  limitation.   75.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed  by Defendant, and Defendant is an employer covered by the overtime requirements under Ohio  law.   76.  Ohio law requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not less than  one and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty  (40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the exemptions of  section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.”  See R.C. § 4111.03(A); see  also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   77.  The Named Plaintiffs and Ohio Rule 23 Class worked in excess of the maximum  weekly hours permitted under R.C. § 4111.03 but were not correctly paid their overtime rate for  all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in workweeks that they received Additional  Remuneration as described herein.   78.  Defendant’s company-wide corporate policy and/or practice of not properly  paying its hourly, non-exempt employees the correct overtime rate for each hour worked over  forty (40) hours in workweeks that employees also received Additional Remuneration as  described herein resulted in unpaid overtime wages for the Named Plaintiffs and Ohio Rule 23  Class.   79.  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated Ohioans were not exempt from the  wage protections of Ohio law.   80.  Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the  Ohio Rule 23 Class by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at time-and-one-half times their  correct regular rates for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek because Defendant  did not properly calculate its employees’ overtime rate when they received Additional  Remuneration as described herein.   81.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not exempt from the wage  protections of Ohio law. Indeed, during relevant times, the Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule  23 Class Members were not exempt from receiving overtime because, inter alia, they were not  “executive,” “administrative,” “professional,” “outside sales” or “computer” employees, as those  terms are defined under the FLSA.  See R.C. § 4111.03(A); see also 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.0, et seq.   82.  Defendant’s repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to the Named  Plaintiffs and those similarly situated Ohioans were violations of R.C. § 4111.03, and as such,  Defendant acted willfully.    83.  For Defendant’s violations of R.C. § 4111.03, by which the Named Plaintiffs and  those similarly situated Ohioans have suffered and continue to suffer damages, the Named  Plaintiffs and those similarly situated Ohioans seek unpaid overtime and other compensation,  liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available.   84.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   85.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members  have been employed by Defendant.   86.  During relevant times, Defendant was an entity covered by the OPPA and the  Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by Defendant within  the meaning of the OPPA.    87.  The OPPA requires Defendant to pay Named Plaintiffs and Ohio Rule 23 Class  all wages, including unpaid overtime, on or before the first day of each month, for wages earned  by them during the first half of the preceding month ending with the fifteenth day thereof,  and on or before the fifteenth day of each month, for wages earned by them during the last half  of the preceding calendar month. See R.C. § 4113.15(A).   88.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not paid  all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay as  described herein within thirty (30) days of performing the work. See R.C. § 4113.15(B).   89.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ unpaid wages remain  unpaid for more than thirty (30) days beyond their regularly scheduled payday.   90.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been harmed  and continue to be harmed by such unpaid wages.   91.  In violating the OPPA, Defendant acted willfully, without a good faith basis, and  with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.  A. 216(b) Collective Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages.  