10.  Furthermore, during the relevant time period Defendants failed to compensate  Plaintiffs for all time worked and engaged in a practice of shorting Plaintiffs’ hours.   Additionally, some or all Plaintiffs were not paid for their final week of work subsequent to the  termination of their employment for Defendants.   11.  Moreover, during the course of Plaintiffs' employment, Defendants made  deductions from Plaintiffs' and similarly situated employees’ wages including but not limited to  the costs of uniforms. These deductions: (1) were not required by law; (2) were not to Plaintiffs’  benefit; and (3) were not made with the express written consent of Plaintiffs, given freely at the  time the deductions were made.   4  V.  12.  Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 as for  their state law claims for overtime wages arising under the IMWL (Count II); for  misclassification of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees as independent contractors  under the ECA (Count III); and for unlawful deductions arising under the IWPCA (Count IV).    13.  The Counts referenced in paragraph 12 are brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  Rule 23(a) and (b) because:  (i) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although  the precise number of class members is unknown at this time, Plaintiffs estimate there are  at least forty putative class members throughout the relevant statutory periods; and  (ii) there are questions of fact or law common to the class, and common questions  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.    14.  The common questions of fact or law include but are not limited to the allegations  set forth in Section IV, ¶¶ 8 -11 of this Complaint: that Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs and  others similarly situated as independent contractors, that Defendants paid a straight rate of pay  for all hours worked in a workweek and engaged in a practice of shorting employees’ pay, and  that Defendants made unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs' and similarly situated workers' wages.   15.  Furthermore, Plaintiffs and members of the class have been equally affected by  Defendants’ failure to comply with the laws as described above, and Plaintiffs, putative class  members, and Defendants have a commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedies  sought.   16.    Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately represent the interest of the classes,  whereas if individual actions were required to be brought by each member of the class injured or  affected, the result may be an array of actions creating hardship for the class members,  Defendants and this Court.    5   17.   Accordingly, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this lawsuit.   18.  Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq., and the Portal- to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. §251 et seq., the named Plaintiffs, and all other Plaintiffs similarly  situated, known and unknown, are entitled to compensation for all hours worked and  compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours  worked in excess of forty hours in any week, during the three years preceding the filing of this  action.     19.   Defendants have at all times relevant hereto failed and refused to pay overtime  compensation to their employees, including the named Plaintiffs herein, and all other Plaintiffs  similarly situated, known and unknown, as described above.    20.  Defendants’ failure and refusal to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated at  their overtime rate of pay was willful in that Defendants knew or should have known that  Plaintiffs were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other Plaintiffs similarly  situated, known and unknown, respectfully request this Court to enter an order:  (a)  awarding back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid overtime compensation for  the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, according to the applicable statute of  limitations;  (b)  awarding prejudgment interest with respect to the total amount of unpaid overtime  compensation;  (c)  awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result  of Defendants’ violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act; and  (d)  for such additional relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.  6  21.    As described in the foregoing paragraphs, Defendants’ compensation policies  and practices are in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq.    22.  Defendants have at all times relevant hereto failed and refused to pay overtime  compensation to their employees, including the named Plaintiffs herein, and all other Plaintiffs  similarly situated, known and unknown, as described above.    23.    Defendants’ failure to pay compensation as described above, has been willful  and/or in bad faith in that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were entitled to  overtime pay under the IMWL.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other Plaintiffs similarly  situated, known and unknown, respectfully request this Court to enter an order:   (a)  declaring and decreeing Defendants’ compensation practices as described herein,  and such other violations which may come to light during the prosecution of this matter,  in  violation of the provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law;  (b)  allowing this action to be maintained as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(a) and (b);  (c)  ordering Defendants to pay statutory damages pursuant to the formula set forth in  820 ILCS 105/12(a);  (d)  directing Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs,  and litigation expenses, as provided by statute; and   (e)  for such additional relief the Court deems just and appropriate under the  circumstances.  7  24.    As described in the foregoing paragraphs, Defendants’ policy and practice of  treating employees as independent contractors is in violation of the Illinois Employee  Classification Act.   6.    Plaintiffs at all times pertinent to the cause of action were employed by  Defendants, said employment being integral and indispensable to Defendants’ business.   7.   Defendants employed Plaintiffs at varying rates of pay in both the winter and  summer seasons from approximately 2013 through early 2016.  3   8.   Throughout their employment during all seasons, Plaintiffs customarily worked  over forty hours per week, yet were paid at their straight rate of pay for all hours worked,  including those over forty in a workweek.   9.   Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees were classified and paid as  “independent contractors” by Defendants, yet their job duties and their working relationship to  Defendants did not qualify them as bona fide independent contractors.  Specifically:  (a) Plaintiffs were required to report to the company location at a set time and work  a set amount of hours, as dictated by Defendants;  (b) Plaintiffs used Defendants’ tools, drove or traveled in Defendants’ vehicles, and  held themselves out as employees of Defendants’ company;  (c) Plaintiffs were required to wear a specific uniform bearing the company’s logo  (“KCG Management”);  (d) Plaintiffs were employed on a semi-permanent, full-time basis, and their job  duties contributed to Defendants’ primary or sole business purpose (to provide landscaping,  maintenance, construction, and snow and ice removal services).   VIOLATION OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  UNPAID OVERTIME  Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated  216(b) Collective Action  1-17.  Paragraphs 1 through 17 are re-alleged and incorporated as though set forth fully  herein as paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Count I.   VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS MINIMUM WAGE LAW  UNPAID OVERTIME  Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated  Class Action  1-20.  Paragraphs 1 through 20 of Count I are re-alleged and incorporated as though set  forth fully herein as Paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Count II.   VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION ACT  EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATION  Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated  Class Action  1-23.  Paragraphs 1 through 23 of Count II are re-alleged and incorporated as though set  forth fully herein as Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Count III.  