27.  Plaintiff Papp was hired by Defendant as a trainee for the General Manager position  in or around March 2015 through December 2015.     28.  As a prerequisite to becoming a General Manager, Plaintiff was required to work  as a GMIT at the Wawa locations in Mullica Hill, Millville, Bridgeton, and Thorofare, New  Jersey.   29.  During Plaintiff’s training, Papp primarily performed work that would typically be  expected of hourly employees, including re-stocking the store, running the deli counter, cleaning  the coffee area and making coffee, ringing registers, and flowing goods to the sales floor.   31.  Plaintiff was employed by Wawa as a GMIT at the store location in Hill, Millville,  Bridgeton, and Thorofare, New Jersey. from approximately March 2015 through December 2015.     32.  At all times during Plaintiff’s training and employment, he was paid by Wawa.   33.  As a GMIT, Plaintiff was required to work a minimum of ten (10) hours a day, five  (5) days per week.    34.  Plaintiff worked approximately fifty (50) to sixty (60) hours per week during each  week, and was not paid for the hours he worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.  For  example, during the week of August 23, 2015 through August 29, 2015, Plaintiff worked  approximately fifty-five (55) hours.   35.  The number of shifts Plaintiff worked per week can be ascertained from  Defendant’s records.   36.  Plaintiff never received overtime wages for working in excess of forty (40) hours  per week.   37.  Wawa assigned all of the work performed by Plaintiff and the other similarly  situated current and former Trainees, and is aware of all the work that they have performed.   38.  The work required of the Plaintiff and the GMITs did not include managerial  responsibilities.   39.  Plaintiff’s primary duties as a GMIT were unrelated to the management of the store.   On a daily basis, Papp’s primary tasks included working the cash registers, making deli  sandwiches, stocking shelves, cleaning the store, assisting customers, unpacking merchandise,  and other manual tasks.     41.  Plaintiff and collective and class members were required to train for the General  Manager position and participate in Defendant’s Management Training programs.   42.  During training for their General Manager positions, Plaintiff and other similarly  situated Trainees’ primary duties have not been management.  Plaintiff was for all intensive  purposes, doing the duties of an hourly associate, which included ringing on the register,  manning the deli, making hoagie sandwiches, filling up the cooler and doing other manual tasks  that were usually performed by an associate.   43.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated Trainees have not performed the duties of an  exempt management employee. For example, while training for General Manager positions,  Plaintiff and other Trainees have not interviewed potential employees, selected or trained  employees; have not set or adjusted employees’ rates of pay or hours of work; have not  recommended employees for promotion or demotion; have not handled employee complaints or  grievances; have not determined techniques to be used in the stores; have not controlled the flow  or distribution of materials or merchandise; have not maintained production or sales records;  have not planned or controlled the budget; and have not monitored or implemented legal  compliance measures.   44.  While training for the General Manager position, Plaintiff and other Trainees have  not customarily and regularly exercised discretionary powers.    45.  While training for the General Manager position, Plaintiff and other Trainees have  not customarily and regularly exercised discretion and independent judgment.   47.  Upon information and belief, during the relevant liability periods, all Trainees for  Defendant at its store locations in the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware,  Virginia and Florida have used standardized training materials issued by Defendant.   48.  Upon information and belief, during the relevant liability periods, all Trainees for  Defendant at their store locations in the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland,  Delaware, Virginia and Florida have been subject to Defendant’s Management Training  Program.   49.  During the relevant liability periods in which Plaintiff and other similarly situated  Trainees have trained for the General Manager position, Defendant has misclassified them as  exempt and have not paid them overtime compensation for hours worked over forty (40) hours  in a workweek.   50.  As Trainees, Plaintiff was scheduled to work fifty (50) to sixty (60) hours a week.  Upon information and belief, during the relevant liability periods, Trainees companywide have  been consistently and uniformly worked in excess of fifty (50) hours per week during training.   51.  As Trainees, Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation for the hours worked  over forty (40) hours in a workweek. Upon information and belief, during the relevant liability  periods, all Trainees have been denied overtime compensation for hours worked over forty (40)  hours in a workweek.   52.  All work performed by the Plaintiff and other Trainees has been for the benefit of  and accepted by Defendant.   54.  Defendant was aware that the primary duties of Plaintiff and the other GMITs  were non-managerial.   55.  These assignments were given to Trainees mainly due to the pressure that the  General Managers received from the District Managers to complete such tasks.   56.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Trainees were  engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §§  206-207.   57.  Wawa employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former Trainees  at their store locations in the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia  and Florida.   58.  Wawa issued paychecks to the Plaintiff and the other Trainees during their  employment.   59.  The Plaintiff was paid on a salary basis, and classified as exempt from overtime  compensation by Wawa.   60.  Plaintiff and the other Trainees worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  workweek, without receiving overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.   61.  Plaintiff and the other Trainees worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  workweek, without receiving overtime compensation as required by the NJWHL.   62.  Pursuant to Defendant’s policy and pattern or practice, Defendant did not pay  Plaintiff and the other Trainees overtime wages for hours they worked for their benefit in excess  of forty (40) hours in a workweek.  64.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 216(b), Plaintiff seeks to prosecute his FLSA  claims as a Collective Action on behalf of all similarly situated persons, currently or formerly  employed by Wawa as Trainees at their store locations in the States of New Jersey,  Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and Florida (the “Collective Action Members”) at  any time three (3) years prior to the date of filing this Complaint, to the entry of judgment in this  case (the “Collective Action Period”).   65.  During the FLSA Liability Period, Defendant employed numerous Trainees who  are similarly situated to Plaintiff Papp in that they have performed the same duties as Trainees,  and have been subjected to the same illegal pay practices as Plaintiff Papp.   66.  During the FLSA Liability Period, Trainees, like Plaintiff Papp, have been victims  of a common policy, plan, or scheme by Defendant to misclassify Trainees as exempt and to  deny them overtime compensation required by the FLSA.   67.  During the FLSA Liability Period, Trainees, like Plaintiff Papp, have been  uniformly affected by Defendant’s centralized, companywide policy and/or practice to classify  Trainees as exempt and to deny them overtime compensation required by the FLSA, which  applies  at all of the Defendant’s locations in the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland,  Delaware, Virginia and Florida.   68.  Defendant’s misclassification of Plaintiff Papp and other similarly situated  Trainees, and Defendant’s unlawful compensation policies and/or practices, have been in willful  disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Papp, and other similarly situated Trainees under the FLSA.   70.  There are many Collective Action Members who have not been paid overtime  wages in violation of the FLSA, who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised  notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it.  Thus, notice should be sent to the Collective  Action Members pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   71.  The Collective Action Members are known to Defendant, are readily identifiable,  and can be located through Defendant’s records.    72.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs.   73.  Pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,  Plaintiff sues individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, currently or  formerly employed by Wawa as Trainees within the State of New Jersey.    74.  Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), a Plaintiff must plead that:  a. The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable;  b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class that predominate over any  individual questions of law or fact;  c. Claims or defenses of the representative are typical of the class;  d. The representative will fairly and adequately protect the class; and,  e. A class action is superior to other methods of adjudication.   76.  The persons identified as the Class Members above are so numerous that joinder  of all members is impracticable. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, and  the facts on which the calculation of that number can be made are presently within the sole  control of Defendant, upon information and belief, there are at least 100 Class Members during  the Class Periods.  Common Questions of Law and/or Fact   78.  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class  Members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief  with respect to the Class Members as a whole.   79.  Plaintiff is committed to pursuing this action and has retained competent counsel  experienced in wage and hour law and class action litigation.   80.  Plaintiff has the same interests in this matter as all other Class Members,  and Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class Members.  Typicality of Claims and/or Defenses   81.  The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class Members and a class  action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the  controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where individual plaintiffs  lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against the  Defendant.  Adequacy   82.   Plaintiff is committed to pursuing this action and has retained competent counsel  experienced in wage and hour law and class action litigation.   84.   Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the putative class.  Indeed, at all relevant  times herein, Defendant treated Plaintiff identically, or at the very least, substantially-similarly,  to the Class Members.   85.   Any lawsuit brought by a salaried GMIT of Defendants would be identical to a  suit brought by any salaried GMIT for the same violations. Thus, separate litigation would risk  inconsistent results.   86.   Accordingly, this means of protecting the Class Members’ rights is superior to  any other method, and this action is properly maintainable as a Class Action under Federal Rule  of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).   87.   Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel has substantial experience in this field of law.  88.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf the Collective Action Members, re-alleges  and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 as if set forth again herein.   89.  At all relevant times, Defendant employed Plaintiff, and employed or continue to  employ, each of the Collective Action Members within the meaning of the FLSA.   90.  Wawa has engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the FLSA, as  described in this Complaint.   91.  Plaintiff consented in writing to be a party to this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b).     93.  During the FLSA Liability Period, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff Papp  and all other similarly situated Trainees for all their hours worked for Defendant in excess of  forty (40) hours per week as required by Section 207 of the FLSA.   94.  Plaintiff Papp and all other Trainees similarly-situated to them, have been victims  of a policy and plan by Defendant to misclassify them as exempt employees for their work as  Trainees and to deny them overtime compensation required by the FLSA.   95.  Defendant’s misclassification of Plaintiff Papp and all other Trainees similarly- situated to them as exempt employees, and Defendant’s failure to pay them in accordance with  the requirements of Section 207 of the FLSA, has been in willful disregard of the overtime wage  compensation requirements of the FLSA.   96.  Defendant have not made, kept, or preserved records of the hours worked by  Manager Trainees as required for non-exempt employees pursuant to Section 211(c) of the  98.  Plaintiff Papp, individually and on behalf of all Class Members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 87 as if set forth again herein.   99.  Wawa’s violations of the NJWHL have been willful.  100.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Class Members were employed by  Defendant within the meaning of the NJWHL.  101.  Defendant willfully violated Plaintiff’s rights as well as the rights of the Class  Members, by failing to pay them for all hours worked and overtime compensation at rates not  less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty  (40) hours in a workweek in violation of the NJWHL.  102.  Defendant’s NJWHL violations have caused Plaintiff and the Class Members  irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.  103.  Due to Defendant’s NJWHL violations, Plaintiff and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendant their unpaid wages for all hours worked, overtime  compensation, damages and/or interest for unreasonably delayed payment of wages, reasonable  attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements of the action, pursuant to the NJWHL.  FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT:  UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and All Collective Action Members)  