20.  Defendants are and/or operate a private club that provides  entertainment to its patrons in the form of music, alcoholic beverages, and live  dancers.   21.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated dance in the club without very  many clothes on.   22.  Taylor was employed by Defendant as a dancer in August of 2010  and she is still so employed, and she has always been classified as an  independent contractor. During this time period, Defendant did not pay Taylor  any wages or other compensation.  Taylor typically worked eight-hour shifts,  three days a week.   23.  During  the  relevant  time  period,  Defendant  intentionally  misclassified all women who worked as dancers, including Plaintiff, as  independent contractors as opposed to employees. As a result of this intentional  misclassification, Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class were not paid  the minimum wages required under the FLSA.   25.  Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class are tipped  employees under the FLSA as they are engaged in occupation in which they  customarily and regularly receive more than $30.00 each month in tips.  Throughout the relevant time period Plaintiff and each class member have  averaged more than $7.25 per hour in tips.  Nevertheless, as employees of  Defendants, Plaintiff and the proposed class members remain entitled to: (i)  receive minimum wages under the FLSA, and (ii) retain all tips given to them by  customers when they performed dances.   26.  Defendants' misclassification of Plaintiff and other proposed class  members as independent contractors was designed to deny class members their  fundamental rights as employees to receive minimum wages, to retain all tips  given to them by customers and was done to enhance Defendants' profits.   28.  The touchstone for determining whether an individual is an  "employee" under the FLSA is the "economic reality" test.  Under the test,  employee status turns on whether the individual is, as a matter of economic  reality, in business for herself. Here, as a matter of economic reality, Plaintiff,  and other members of the proposed class, were not in business for themselves  and truly independent, but rather were "economically dependent" on Defendant.   29.  Courts utilize six factors to determine economic dependence. They  are (i) the degree of control exercised by the alleged employer, (ii) the relative  investments of the alleged employer and employee, (iii) the degree to which the  employee's opportunity for profit and loss is determined by the employer, (iv) the  skill and initiative required in performing the job, (v) the permanency of the  relationship, and (vi) the degree to which the alleged employee's tasks are  integral to the employer's business.   31.  Plaintiffs are not in business for themselves, but are dependent  upon finding employment with others, namely Defendants.  A. Degree of Control - Plaintiff and the Proposed Class Exercise No  Control Over Their "Own" Or Their Employers' Business.   32.  Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed class do not exert  meaningful control over Defendants' business and do not stand as separate  economic entities from Defendants.   33.  Defendants exercise control over all aspects of the working  relationship with Plaintiff and other proposed class members.   34.  The economic status of Plaintiff and the other members of the  proposed class is inextricably linked to those conditions over which Defendants  have complete control.  They are completely dependent on the club for their  , earnings.   35.  Defendants control all of the advertising and promotion without  which the dancers could not survive economically.   36.  Plaintiff and other member of the proposed class are restricted from  working at other exotic dance clubs while in a working arrangement with  Defendants.   38.  Dancers are required to account to Defendants for all dances they  perform in the club. Defendants require that the dancers pay a fee from their tips  to the disc jockey, bouncer, and to Defendants as "house fees."   39.  In addition, dancers are required to pay a separate portion of their  tips to Defendants each time they perform private dances. Private dances are  available to club patrons at an additional minimum cost set by Defendants.   40.  Defendants alone establishes the fee split which each dancer is  required to pay it and the disc jockey for each type of dance for which they  receive tips during the work shift (i.e., how much per private dance, and how  much of the tips received for other types of dances such as stage dances.)   41.  Defendants increased the "house fees" the dancers must pay to  Defendant if they are late for their scheduled shift.   42.  Ultimately, Defendants set the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's  and all proposed class members' work.  This is the hallmark of economic  dependence.  B. Skill and Initiative Required in Performing the Job.   43.  Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed class do not  exercise the skill and initiative of a person in business for themselves.   45.  The dance skills utilized are commensurate with those exercised by  ordinary people who choose to dance at a disco or at a wedding.   46.  Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed class do not have  the opportunity to exercise the business skills and initiative necessary to elevate  their status to that of independent contractors.   47.  Plaintiff owns no enterprise.   48.  She exercises no business management skills.   49.  She maintains no separate business structures or facilities.   50.  She does not exercise control over customer volume or the  atmosphere at the private club.   51.  Plaintiff does not actively participate in any effort to increase the  club's client base, enhance goodwill, or establish contracting possibilities.   52.  The scope of Plaintiff's initiative is restricted to decisions involving  what clothes to wear (within Defendants' guidelines) or how provocatively to  dance which is consistent with the status of an employee, not an independent  contractor.   54.  Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed class have made  miniscule investments into their employment, particularly when compared to the  investment made by Defendants.   55.  Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class make no capital  investment in the facilities, advertising, maintenance, sound system and lights,  food, beverage and other inventory, or staffing of the club.   56.  Plaintiff and the proposed class members' investment is limited to  expenditures on costumes and make-up which they may choose to wear while  working, and their own labor.  But for Defendants' provision of the club the  dancers work in, Plaintiff and the proposed class members would earn nothing.  D. Opportunity for Profit and Loss.   57.  Defendants, not Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class,  manage all aspects of the business operation. Defendants establish the hours of  operation, set the atmosphere, coordinate advertising, hire and control the staff  (managers, waitresses, bartenders, bouncers/doormen, etc.).  Defendants, not  Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class, take the true business risks  for the club.   59.  Defendants alone establish the minimum tip amounts that should  be collected from patrons for private dances.  E. Permanency of the Relationship.   60.  Defendants do not permit Plaintiff and other members of the  proposed class to dance professionally at any other venue while employed by  Defendants.   61.  Plaintiff and proposed class members have a long-term relationship  with Defendants and dance at their location multiple times.  F. Integral Part of the Employer's Business.   62.  Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed class are dancers  that are essential to the success of Defendants' business. In fact, the primary  reason the private club exists is to showcase the dancers' physical attributes for  customers.   63.  Defendants also serve alcoholic beverages at the club. Defendants  are able to charge a much higher price for their drinks than establishments  without exotic dancers because the dancers are the main attraction of the club.  As a result, Plaintiff and the other proposed class members are an integral part of  Defendants' business.   65.  Plaintiff and the proposed class members were misclassi'fied as  independent contractors and should have been paid minimum wages through the  relevant time period and otherwise afforded the rights of employees.  v.  72.  Plaintiff brings her claim for relief for violation of the FLSA as a  collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on  behalf of all persons who were, are, or will be employed by Defendants as  similarly situated dancers improperly classified as independent contractors at any  time within the applicable statute of limitations period, who are entitled to  payment of minimum wage and applicable overtime premiums for all hours  worked for Defendants.   73.  The relevant time period dates back three years from the date in  which this Complaint was filed and continues forward through the date of  judgment pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   74.  Plaintiff is unable to state the exact number of the class but believe  that the class exceeds 50 persons but is less than 200 persons.   76.  The email addresses o"f many of the FLSA collective action plaintiffs  are available from Defendants, and notice should be provided to the FLSA  collective action plaintiffs via email to their last known email address as soon as  possible.   77.	  The claimed damages exceed $100,000.00.   78.  Plaintiff asserts that other current and former dancers are similarly  situated in that they are and/or were subject to Defendants' same policy and  practice of misclassifying dancers as independent contractors, as opposed to  employees, and were not paid the minimum wage required under the FSLA.   80.  Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the  preceding paragraphs as if they were set forth again herein.   81.  Plaintiff asserts this claim for damages and declaratory relief  pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.   82.  At all relevant times Defendants have been, and continue to be, an  "employer" engaged in interstate "commerce" and/or in the production of "goods"  for "commerce," within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.   83.  At all relevant times Defendants have employed and/or continue to  employ "employee[s]," including Plaintiff and each of the prospective FLSA  Collective Action Plaintiffs, who have been and/or continue to be engaged in  interstate "commerce" and/or in the production of "goods" for "commerce," within  the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203. At all relevant times, Defendants  have had annual gross operating revenues in excess of $500,000.00.   85.  29 U.S.C. §207(a) provides in pertinent part:  ... no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any  workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods  for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged n  commerce or in the production of goods for commerce for a  workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives  compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above  specified at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the  regular rate at which he is employed.   86.  Defendants failed to pay class members the minimum wages set  forth in 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207, or any wages whatsoever.   87.  In fact, Defendants required that Plaintiff and other similarly  situated actually pay them in order to work.   88.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and all other members of the  proposed class minimum wages throughout the relevant time period because  they misciassified them as independent contractors.   89.  The amounts paid to Plaintiff and the proposed class members by  customers in relations to dances performed were tips not wages and cannot be  used to offset Defendants' obligation to pay class members minimum wages.   91.  Neither of these conditions were satisfied by Defendants in this  case.   92.  Defendants did not inform Plaintiff or other members of the  proposed class of the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).   93.  Plaintiff and other class members did not retain all the tips received  except those tips included in a tipping pool among employees who customarily  receive tips.   94.  Defendants never notified Plaintiff and other class members that  their tips were being used to reduce the minimum wages otherwise due under  FLSA's tip-credit provisions and that thy were still due the reduced minimum  wage for tipped employees. Rather, Defendants have always maintained that  Plaintiff and members of the proposed class were never due any minimum  wages due to their intentional misclassification as independent contractors; and  in turn, Defendants paid them no wages.   96.  Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff and all members of the proposed  class are entitled to the full statutory minimum and overtime wages set forth in 29  U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 for all periods in which they worked for Defendants.   97.  Defendants' conduct in misclassifying Plaintiff and other class  members as independent contractors was willful and done to avoid paying them  minimum and overtime wages and the other benefits they were legally entitled to.   98.  The FLSA provides that a private civil action may be brought for the  payment of federal minimum and overtime wages and for an equal amount in  liquidated damages in any court of competent jurisdiction by an employee on  behalf of him/herself and other employees similarly situated pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b) ("Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or  207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the  amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation,  as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.")   VIOLATION OF THE FLSA (Failure to Pay Statutory Minimum Wages) 