1.  Warren is a resident of the State of Indiana, and is domiciled in Plymouth,  Marshall County, Indiana.   10.  Warren is specifically alleging that Oasis has taken illegal deductions in violation  of the Indiana Wage Assignment Statute, I.C. 22-2-6-2, and in so doing, Oasis has failed and  refused to pay Warren and every other similarly situated PPE-wearing employee his/her wages in  full in each and every week Oasis took one of these pay roll deductions for PPE.      11.  Warren is also alleging that Oasis has and had no legal authority to dock his  wages and the wages of its employees to cover Oasis’ own business expenses (and legal  obligation to pay and provide PPE under OSHA and other law), nor did Oasis have signed,  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 6 of 18 7  written authority from its employees, including Warren, which complies with I.C. 22-2-6-2 and  would allow Oasis to dock its employees’ wages to cover PPE costs (as described above).   12.  Any wage deductions Oasis took from Warren’s wages and the wages of his  coworkers without wage assignments that fully complied with the requirements of I.C. 22-2-6- 2(a) are illegal and created violations of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute, regardless of  whether or not the deduction was taken for a reason which would have been permitted under I.C.  22-2-6-2(b).  That said, the deductions Oasis took for PPE costs are not authorized under I.C. 22- 2-6-2(b).  Moreover, as described above, the deductions Oasis took and takes for PPE costs  directly violates the prohibition listed in I.C. 22-2-6-2(e).    13.       All wage deductions Oasis took from Warren and any other PPE-wearing  employee’s wages during weeks in which the Plaintiff also worked overtime constitutes and  FLSA overtime violation for failure to pay all overtime free and clear and not subject to any  kickback.  This would include all deductions taken from Warren or any worker’s wages for any  PPE costs.     14.  While discovery will be necessary to determine precise figures, based upon  information and belief, Warren estimates that Oasis has illegally deducted and taken from its  employees well over $100,000.00 in wages over the last two years’ time.  With liquidated  damages under I.C. 22-2-5-2, Oasis will likely owe damages of $300,000.00 or more for its  unlawful deductions for PPE costs.  B.  Description of Unpaid Wage and Overtime Claims Based Upon Oasis’ Failure to Pay  Wages From Each Employee’s First Principal Activity to Each Employee’s Last Principal  Activity   15.       Oasis utilizes a time clock for its hourly paid employees.  However, Oasis’ time  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 7 of 18 8  clock records for Warren and all similarly situated PPE-wearing employees will not accurately  record all work Warren and his coworkers performed each work day.  Specifically, as described  in more detail in the paragraphs below, Oasis was not keeping accurate time records which  recorded compensable work activity employees performed at the start of each work shift, nor  was Oasis recording compensable work activity which employees performed after punching out  on the Oasis time clock at the end of each work shift.   16.  Unpaid Work At the Beginning of Each Work Shift.  Warren and all PPE- wearing coworkers are required to spend significant time at the beginning of each work shift  donning required PPE to protect themselves from harmful fiberglass, resins, paint and other  harmful materials.  Workers don PPE outside of their assigned Oasis work areas, many in the  Oasis locker room, but some don the gear in the parking lot or entry way (the PPE is worn over  clothes and shoes).  The PPE must be donned, however, before employees are allowed to walk in  any manufacturing area or, more importantly, walk to their assigned work stations.  For that  reason, this PPE donning of 1) disposable paper shirts, 2) disposable paper pants, 3) disposable  paper shoe coverings (booties), 4) disposable paper face masks, 5) safety eye glasses, 6)  disposable head coverings, and 7) disposable gloves, takes many significant minutes of work.   None of this donning time is paid, nor is it recorded on the Oasis time clock.  After donning  required PPE, employees punch in on the Oasis time clock and then take the minutes necessary  to walk to an assigned Oasis work area.  Oasis requires each employee to be fully dressed in PPE  and at his/her assigned work station, ready to work, at the employee’s scheduled work start time.   For example, Warren typically worked the second shift and he was required to be in his full PPE  and present at his work area at his scheduled 3:00 p.m. shift start time.  Oasis set its time clocks  so that employees could only punch in for a shift on the time clock at a time that was ten minutes  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 8 of 18 9  prior to the scheduled shift start time.  This fact did not matter to employee wages, however,  because Oasis would disregard actual time clock punches “in,” and would instead begin paying  employees only at the official scheduled shift time (in Warren’s case, this was 3:00 p.m.).  This  means, and Warren expressly asserts and alleges, Oasis was not paying Warren and all similarly  situated PPE-wearing coworkers for their compensable work minutes and hours spent in required  PPE donning and time walking to work areas after donning PPE and clocking in at the beginning  of a shift.  Similarly, Warren and his coworkers would also have to spend significant,  compensable work time obtaining PPE from Oasis PPE store/window on most work shifts (this  includes obtaining PPE that Oasis would charge to employees through the wage deductions  described above).  Warren and his similarly-situated PPE-wearing coworkers were losing ten or  more minutes of compensable work time at the beginning of each work shift every day – at least  five shifts per week.  Warren estimates that he would arrive to work twenty minutes before his  scheduled shift start in order to have time to 1) obtain his PPE, 2) don his PPE, 3) clock in, and  4) walk to his work station to arrive before his scheduled start time.   17.  Unpaid Work At the End of Each Work Shift.   At the end of each work shift,  Warren and all similarly situated PPE-wearing coworkers would leave work stations and walk  back to the time clock to punch out.  During this end of shift walk, employees would still  have  to be dressed in required PPE.  Oasis would treat an employee’s time punch out as the end of the  employee’s paid work day.  However, after punching out, employees would have to spend  significant minutes in clean up and doffing all of the required PPE, including all of the  disposable paper PPE which would be caked with fiberglass material, resin, paint, etc….  This  doffing and cleaning process would take at least five or more minutes after each employee  clocked out.  Oasis did not pay wages for these additional minutes.    USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 9 of 18 10   18.  Oasis violated the FLSA’s recording keeping obligations, 29 USC 211(c), by  failing to accurately record all compensable time worked by Warren and all similarly situated  PPE-wearing coworkers from a first principal work activity through a last principal work activity  each work shift.  As a result of this recordkeeping violation, the Court and the parties will need  to rely upon the best available evidence of this off the clock work time that Oasis failed to pay.   This is true for unpaid wages and unpaid overtime compensation.  Warren conservatively  estimates that Oasis failed to pay him and his similarly situated PPE-wearing coworkers by  fifteen or more minutes each work shift and by well over one hour each work week.  Further,  Warren specifically asserts and alleges that he is owed wages for at least one hour of  work/overtime work in every full work week (5 or more shifts) he worked for Oasis.       19.       Based upon its long-standing practice of failing to treat substantial shift beginning  and shift ending work (donning and doffing of required PPE and walking time) as compensable  work time, Oasis has been systematically underpaying its employees significant sums of wages  and overtime on a daily, weekly and annual basis.      2.  Oasis operates its manufacturing facility in Plymouth, Marshall County, Indiana.   Oasis manufactures home bath products, such as shower stalls and bases and combination tubs  and showers.  The products Oasis manufactures have high resin and fiberglass content and  production workers work with raw resin and fiberglass materials.   20.  As described above, all of the time employees spend donning required PPE is  work time.  All time spent walking to a work station after donning required PPE is work time.   All of this PPE-donning and walking work time must be compensated under the FLSA and the  Indiana Wage Payment Statute.  Oasis does not and has not paid Warren and all similarly  situated employees for any of this work time from the time of each employee’s first principal  activity (donning PPE) until the time employees doff the PPE, as is required by law.   21.  All of Oasis’ time keeping, time card rounding/shaving and wage payment  schemes were performed to Oasis’ advantage and to the detriment and harm of Oasis’  employees.  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 10 of 18 11   22.   Oasis intentionally and knowingly violated its employees’ rights to earned wages  and overtime through Oasis’ conscious and deliberate decision not to pay employees for all work  time related to the donning and doffing of PPE and all related work activities which occurred  before the official shift scheduled start time and after punching out on the time clock at the end  of a shift.      23.  During his last months of employment, in 2018, Warren believes he was paid  wages at the rate of $12.00 per hour.  His overtime rate of pay was $18.00 per hour.  During each  work week in 2018, Oasis underpaid Warren his wages and overtime (for each week the unpaid  hours of work would put Warren’s work hours in excess of 40) by one or more hour.  This means  Oasis underpaid Warren’s wages by $12.00 or more per week for each week in 2018.  Under the  Indiana Wage Payment Statute, with liquidated damages under I.C. 22-2-5-2, Oasis owes Warren  damages of $36.00 or more per week he worked.  Under the FLSA, for the weeks Warren  worked overtime hours, Oasis owes $36.00 per week ($18.00/overtime hour doubled to $36.00  under the FLSA’s liquidated damages provision).     24.    Warren’s wage loss is representative and typical of the wages lost by his fellow  PPE-wearing coworkers.  In this class and FLSA collective action, Oasis will owe hundreds of  thousands of dollars in damages to its employees who were not paid for significant donning and  doffing time related to PPE they were required to wear by Oasis and by law.          25.       Oasis has intentionally, knowingly, with reckless disregard and systematically  violated its employees’ rights to earned wages through Oasis’ illegal wage deduction practices  and its illegal treatment of required, work time (donning/doffing of PPE, walking to work  stations) as unpaid time.  Oasis intentionally, knowingly, with reckless disregard and  systematically violated Warren and all similarly situated employees’ rights to be paid earned  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 11 of 18 12  wages and to be paid earned overtime compensation.  Oasis deliberately and intentionally  implemented illegal wage deductions and illegal wage policies in order to pay less in wages and  overtime to its employees than it owed.    26.  Warren incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 - 25 above.   27.       Warren is pursuing claims individually, but this Complaint is brought also as a  collective action and as a class action on behalf of other current and former Oasis PPE-wearing  employees who were similarly denied payment of wages and overtime compensation under  Oasis’ compensation scheme that involved unlawful wage deductions and the failure to pay for  all work time from the first principal activity each day through the last principal activity.   28.       This action is filed as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair  Labor Standards Act, 29 USC § 216(b), on behalf of Warren and all Oasis PPE-wearing current  and former employees who were damaged by Oasis’ compensation system which required and  resulted in uncompensated work by Oasis’ employees.  By virtue of the “collective action,”  Warren represents the identical and/or similar interests of former and current coworkers denied  wages and overtime compensation under the same circumstances.  Warren anticipates that other  Oasis employees and former employees will opt in to the action.   29.       With respect to FRCP 23(b)(3) class action claims under the Indiana Wage  Payment Statute, Warren will serve as class representative over a proposed class.  The class will  be as follows:  Warren will serve as class representative for the class-wide claims brought under the  Indiana Wage Payment Statute.  This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Warren’s  Indiana statutory wage claims.  This action is filed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23  of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of Warren and on behalf of all eligible  PPE-wearing Oasis current and former employees (who voluntarily resigned) who work  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 12 of 18 13  or worked for the company and were damaged by Oasis’ compensation system which  required and resulted in unlawful wage deductions and in uncompensated work  performed by hourly-paid employees.  By virtue of the class action, Warren represents  the identical and/or similar interests of former and current coworkers denied wages under  the same circumstances.    3.  Warren is a former Oasis employee.  He was hired in approximately October 2017  to work as an hourly-paid production employee.  Warren voluntarily resigned from employment  in approximately February or March 2018.    30.       Based upon information and belief (particularly in light of employee turnover  rates), the number of potential class members is believed to be several hundred or more  individuals, however, the actual number of Oasis’ current and former PPE-wearing employees  who will be members of this collective action/class action is so great (numerosity) that joinder of  all members is impractical.  Instead, Warren will pursue discovery to obtain the names of the  other current and former PPE-wearing Oasis employees, to provide notice of the collective  action, and to offer the opt in opportunity, and to provide notice of the class action and to offer  the opt out opportunity.    31.       Particularly with the types of wage claims and practices at issue in this case, there  are questions of law and fact that are common to the entire collective group/class.    32.       Warren’s claims are typical of the claims of the whole collective group of current  and former PPE-wearing, hourly-paid employees harmed by Oasis’ illegal wage practices.   Warren’s claims are typical of the claims of the whole class of current and former PPE-wearing  hourly-paid employees harmed by Oasis’ illegal wage practices.     33.       Warren will act to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the entire  collective group of current and former Oasis PPE-wearing employees.  Warren will act to fairly  and adequately protect the interests of the entire Rule 23 class of current and former PPE- wearing Oasis employees.  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 13 of 18 14   34.       A “combined”1 collective action/class action is superior to other available means  for the fair and efficient prosecution of these wage claims against Oasis.  For example, to prove  Oasis’ illegal wage practices, Warren and other members of this collective group/class would  seek in discovery records about all similarly situated current and former PPE-wearing Oasis   employees who were similarly denied earned wages and overtime compensation under Oasis’  compensation system which required unlawful wage deductions and also resulted in  uncompensated work through illegal wage practices which failed to pay for PPE donning and  doffing work time, all of which harmed hourly-paid employees.  Individual lawsuits by the  members of the collective group/class could lead to 1) inconsistent or varying outcomes in the  cases, 2) duplicitous discovery, or 3) competition for limited funds.  Further, as a practical  matter, the first litigant to trial may achieve a result which would have bearing on all of the other  individuals in the group.   35.       A determination regarding the “similarness” of those able to participate in the  collective action/class action would also allow litigation of claims that may not otherwise be cost  effective, depending upon the amount of each individual group member’s damages.  Particularly  with the type of FLSA and Indiana statutory and contractual wage violations at issue in this  litigation, some, if not most, of the individual group members may not be aware of their rights to  their wages under the FLSA and Indiana law, or may not, because of financial means or  experience, be in a position to seek the assistance of counsel to commence individual litigation.   36.       A combined collective action/class action will result in an orderly and expeditious  administration of the group members’ claims, and economies of time, court resources, effort and  expense, and uniformity of decisions will be assured.       1See Ervin v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc., 632 F.3d 971, 973-974 (7th Cir. 2011)  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 14 of 18 15   37.       Because Oasis’ compensation system which required and resulted in illegal wage  deductions and uncompensated work by hourly-paid employees results in wage violations that  trigger issues of both federal and state law, this cause of action presents the ideal factual scenario  supporting the Court’s exercise over the supplemental state law claims, as common state and  federal law issues predominate.  4.         Oasis pays or paid Warren and his fellow PPE-wearing employees on an hourly- paid basis.  Warren and his fellow PPE-wearing production manufacturing employees are non- exempt for FLSA overtime purposes.  During his employment, Oasis paid Warren at hourly rates  of pay in the $11.00 to $12.00 per hour range.  Warren and his fellow PPE-wearing production  employees routinely work some overtime hours (hours in excess of forty) during some  workweeks through the year.  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 3 of 18 4  A.  Description of Illegal Wage Deduction Claims   5.  During his employment, Warren worked for Oasis as a “roller.”  As a roller,  Warren had to work with and around significant harmful substances, including sprayed  fiberglass, sprayed resins and paint.  Other Oasis job positions that required significant work  around fiberglass, resins, paints and other substances included the jobs of “chopper,” “painter,”  and “parts pullers.”  Warren and all similarly situated Oasis coworkers who worked in areas  around the fiberglass, resins, paints and other harmful substances were required by law –  particularly OSHA and IOSHA laws – to wear substantial PPE while at work or in the  manufacturing area.  Warren estimates that Oasis employs 240 or so employees at any given time  and Warren estimates that, at least, one half of those employees (at least 120 employees) are  required to wear substantial PPE at work to protect from harmful fiberglass, resins, paints and  other substances.  The types of PPE that law (e.g., OSHA laws and regulations) and Oasis  required Warren and his PPE-wearing coworkers to don at work included, but are not limited to,  1) disposable paper shirts, 2) disposable paper pants, 3) disposable paper shoe coverings  (booties), 4) disposable paper face masks, 5) safety eye glasses, 6) disposable head coverings,  and 7) disposable gloves.   6.  By law, particularly OSHA laws and regulations, Oasis is and was required to  provide Warren and all of his fellow PPE-wearing employees with all of the required PPE,  including all paper, disposable PPE, described in the paragraph above, at Oasis’ expense.  Oasis  cannot pass any of the expense of this legally required PPE to its employees.  Indeed, even the  Indiana Wage Assignment Statute itself, at I.C. 22-2-6-2(e), contains this express prohibition on  charging employees through wage assignments for PPE, stating “Except as provided under 29  CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926, an employee shall not be charged or subject to a  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 4 of 18 5  wage assignment under subsection (b)(14) or (b)(15) for protective equipment including personal  protective equipment identified under 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926.”  All of  the PPE described by Warren in Paragraph 5 hereinabove - 1) disposable paper shirts, 2)  disposable paper pants, 3) disposable paper shoe coverings (booties), 4) disposable paper face  masks, 5) safety eye glasses, 6) disposable head coverings, and 7) disposable gloves – are the  same types of PPE which an employer must provide and which it cannot charge (or subject  employees to a wage assignment) to employees under I.C. 22-2-6-2(e).  Under the law, Oasis  could not take wage deductions for costs of any of this PPE from Warren’s wages or any other  PPE-wearing employee for any reason.   7.  Despite its legal obligation to provide and pay for all PPE Oasis employees were  required to wear, Oasis developed a scheme whereby it told employees it would only provide and  pay for two sets of the disposable PPE - 1) disposable paper shirts, 2) disposable paper pants, 3)  disposable paper shoe coverings (booties), 4) disposable paper face masks, 5) disposable head  coverings, and 6) disposable gloves – per work week, and told Warren and fellow employees that  the employees would have to purchase, through a wage deduction, all other sets of disposable  paper PPE needed to finish the work week.  Oasis went so far as to create an area of its  manufacturing facility (a store) where employees would have to purchase additional sets of  disposable paper PPE for the week.  Warren and his fellow PPE-wearing coworkers were  generally working five shifts per week.  More important, because of the caked layers of  fiberglass and resin which built up on the disposable paper PPE each work day, Warren and all  similar coworkers would need at least one set of disposable paper PPE for each work shift.   Oasis’ scheme caused Warren and fellow coworkers to purchase multiple sets of additional  disposable paper PPE each and every work week through wage deductions.  For Warren, he was  USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00048-PPS-MGG   document 1   filed 01/14/20   page 5 of 18 6  purchasing three sets of disposable paper PPE from Oasis every work week and paying for the  PPE himself via wage deductions.     8.  The additional sets of disposable paper PPE Oasis charged to Warren and all  similarly situated PPE-wearing employees were cumulatively expensive.  Oasis charged  employees for each individual item of disposable paper PPE (e.g, $2.00 for a shirt, $2.00 for a  pair of pants).  A full set of disposable paper PPE could cost $5.00 or more.  Warren and all  similarly situated PPE-wearing employees regularly had $15.00 or more deducted from wages  each and every work week.  Warren is expressly and specifically alleging that Oasis illegally  deducted substantial sums from each of his pay checks in each of his work weeks in calendar  year 2018.   9.  Based upon information and belief, all illegal PPE wage deductions Oasis took  from Warren and his coworkers’ wages will be shown as deductions on pay stubs issued by  Oasis.  Pay stubs will show the amount deducted each pay period and should show year to date  (“YTD”) amounts deducted for the pay year.  Pay stubs will show the total amounts deducted  from Warren and from all similarly situated employees for PPE for each pay period and each  year.  