10.  During the course of their employment, Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual workweeks.   11.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees any premium  for the hours they worked in excess of forty hours per week.  V.  12.  Plaintiff will seek to certify his state law claims arising under the IMWL for  Illinois-mandated overtime wages (Count II) as a Rule 23 Class Action. Plaintiff will ask the  Court to determine the rights of the parties pursuant to the IMWL, and to direct the Defendant to  account for all hours worked and wages paid to the class members during the temporality of the  class.    13.  Count II is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b) because:  a.  the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  While the precise number of Class Members has not been determined at  this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant has employed  over sixty persons in Illinois during the IMWL Class Period;  4  b.  There are questions of fact or law common to the class, which common  questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual  members. These common questions of law and fact include, without  limitation:  (i)  Whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class at time and  a half their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per individual work week during the IMWL class period;   c.  The class representative and the members of the class have been equally  affected by Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages;  d.  Members of the class will be reluctant to bring forth claims for unpaid  overtime wages for fear of retaliation;  e.  The class representative, class members and Defendant have a  commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedies sought and the  class representative is able to fairly and adequately represent the interest  of the classes. If individual actions were required to be brought by each  member of the class injured or affected, the result would be a multiplicity  of actions creating a hardship on the class members, Defendant and the  Court.   14.  Therefore, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this lawsuit.   15.  Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 14 as though set forth  herein.  5   16.  This Count arises from Defendant’s violation of the FLSA for its failure to pay  Plaintiff one and a half times his regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of forty (40)  hours in a work week, described more fully in paragraphs 7 - 11, supra.     17.  Defendant directed Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty  (40) hours in individual workweeks within the three (3) years prior to filing this lawsuit.   18.  Other similarly situated employees were also directed to work in excess of forty  (40) hours in individual workweeks within the three years prior to filing this lawsuit    19.  Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were not exempt from the overtime  provisions of the FLSA.   20.  Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were entitled to be paid overtime wages  for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual workweeks.    21.  Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime wages  for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual workweeks.     22.  Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class overtime wages for all time  worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual workweeks was a violation of the FLSA.   23.  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages for up to  three (3) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because Defendant’s violation of the FLSA was  willful.    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendant as follows:  A.  That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a collective action  pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA.   B.  A judgment in the amount of all unpaid overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and the  Class  C.  Liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid overtime wages;   6  D.  Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the FLSA;  E.  Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.  24.  Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 23 as though set forth  herein.     25.  This Count arises from Defendant’s violation of the IMWL for its failure to pay  Plaintiff time and a half his regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours  in individual workweeks, as described more fully in paragraphs 7 - 11, supra.     26.  Defendant directed Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty  (40) hours in individual workweeks within the three (3) years prior to filing this lawsuit.   27.  Plaintiff was not exempt from the overtime provisions of the IMWL.   28.  Plaintiff was entitled to be paid overtime wages for all time worked in excess of  forty (40) hours in individual workweeks.    29.  Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime wages for all time worked in excess of  forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.   30.  Defendant likewise directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to work  in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks and who were likewise entitled to be paid  overtime wages for all compensable time in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.   31.  Defendant did not pay other similarly situated non-exempt laborers at an overtime  rate for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.  7   32.  Defendant’s failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other persons similarly  situated overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours per in individual work  weeks was a violation of the IMWL.   33.  Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to  recover unpaid overtime wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit.   34.  The Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent in regard to the minimum wage claims  arising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all individuals employed by Defendant as  drivers in Illinois from September 7, 2013 and up through the date of filing of this lawsuit.    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant as follows:  A.  That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b);  B.  A judgment in the amount of all back wages due to Plaintiff and the Class as  provided by the IMWL;  C.  Statutory damages pursuant to the formula set forth in 820 ILCS 105/12(a);  D.  That the Court declare that Defendant has violated the IMWL;  E.  That the Court enjoin Defendant from violating the IMWL;   F.  Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the IMWL, 820  ILCS 105/1 et seq.; and  G.  Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.  Dated: September 7, 2016  /s/ Alvar Ayala  Alvar Ayala (ARDC #6295810)  Christopher J. Williams (ARDC #6284262)  Workers’ Law Office, P.C.  53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701  Chicago, IL 60604  (312) 795-9121  Attorneys for Plaintiff   7.  Defendant operates a freight yard and freight repair business in Chicago, Illinois.   8.  Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked for Defendant performing  spotting duties by moving freight containers within Defendant’s yard and adjacent yards and by  performing welding and repair tasks on freight containers on Defendant’s shop.    9.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately late in the calendar year  of 2015 through approximately mid-August 2016.   Violation of the IMWL – Overtime Wages  Plaintiff of behalf of himself and similarly situated employees   Violation of the FLSA – Overtime Wages  Plaintiff on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees  