18.  Plaintiff brings this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of  himself and all similarly situated persons who work or have worked for Pace as bus  operators within the last 3 years, and who elect to opt-in to this action.   19.  Pace unlawfully required plaintiff and all individuals employed as bus  operators, to work without paying them for all of the time that they worked, including some  overtime that they should have been compensated for every hour worked in excess of 40  hours per week.   20.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action members are “similarly situated,”  as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), because, among other things, all such  individuals worked pursuant to Pace’s previously described common pay practices and, as a  result of such practices, were not paid for all of the time that they worked, which includes  some overtime that they should have been compensated 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for  every hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week.   21.  Resolution of this action requires inquiry into common facts, including,  among other things, Pace’s common compensation, timekeeping, and payroll practices.  5   22.  Plaintiff seeks to proceed as a collective action with regard to the first cause of  action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of himself and the following class of  persons:  All Pace bus operators who performed uncompensated work for  Pace, for the three years prior to filing their respective consent  forms, through the present, and who suffered similar wage  and  related  damages  as  alleged  in  the  complaint  (hereinafter the “FLSA Collective Action”).   23.  Pace was aware or should have been aware that the law required it to pay non- exempt employees, including plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action members, for all of the  time that they worked, which includes some overtime that they should have been compensated  for every hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week, at an overtime premium of 1.5 times  their regular rate of pay.   24.  Upon information and belief, there are approximately 1,200-1,300 members  in the FLSA Collective Action, and Pace applied the same unlawful policies and practices  to its bus operators throughout the Chicago metropolitan area.   25.  The FLSA Collective Action members are readily identifiable, and may be  located through Pace’s records, as well as the records of any payroll companies that Pace  utilizes. Pace employs many FLSA Collective Action members throughout the Chicago  metropolitan area. These similarly situated employees may be readily notified of this action  through direct U.S. mail and/or other appropriate means, and should be allowed to opt into this  action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of collectively adjudicating their  claims for regular and overtime compensation, liquidated damages (or alternatively,  interest), and attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.  6  26.  Plaintiff brings the second and third causes of action on his own behalf and as  a class action, pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), on behalf of the following class of  persons:  All Pace bus operators who performed uncompensated work for  Pace, for the three years prior to the complaint filing date, through the  present, and who suffered similar wage and related damages as alleged  in the complaint (hereinafter the “Illinois Wage Class”).   27.  The members of the Illinois Wage Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.  Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, the  facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the sole  control of Pace.   28.  Upon information and belief, there are approximately 1,200-1,300 members  in the Illinois Wage Class.   29.  There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed Illinois Wage  Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual Illinois Wage Class  members, including, without limitation:  a.    whether Pace failed to keep accurate time records for all hours worked  by the Illinois Wage Class representative and the Illinois Wage Class;  b.   whether Pace failed to pay proper compensation to the Illinois  Wage Class representative and the Illinois Wage Class for all hours worked,  including regular work-hours and those that were in excess of 40 hours per  workweek, in violation of and within the meaning of the Illinois Minimum Wage  Law, 820 ILCS 105;  c.   whether Pace failed to pay proper compensation to the Illinois  Wage Class representative and the Illinois Wage Class for all hours worked, in  violation of Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105;  7  d.   the nature and extent of Illinois Wage Class-wide injury and the  appropriate measure of damages sustained by the Illinois Wage Class  representative;  e.   whether Pace acted willfully or with reckless disregard in its failure to  pay the Illinois Wage Class representative and the Illinois Wage Class; and  f.  the nature and extent of class-wide injury and the measure of damages  for those injuries.   30.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  Illinois Wage Class members because there is no conflict between the claims of plaintiff and  those of the Illinois Wage Class, and plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the  Illinois Wage Class.  Plaintiff has previous payroll experience in his career, is  knowledgeable and proficient with the issues herein alleged, and was elected union steward  in March 2017.    31.  Plaintiff has retained competent and skilled counsel, experienced in complex  litigation, including wage and hour litigation like this one, and both attorneys have the ability,  skill, and resources to manage this particular lawsuit.     32.  Further, the Illinois Wage Class representative and the Illinois Wage Class  members have been equally affected by Pace’s failure to pay proper wages.    33.  Pace has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Illinois  Wage Class, thereby making appropriate, any final injunctive relief or corresponding  declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.   34.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Illinois Wage Class. Plaintiff and  the other Illinois Wage Class members were subjected to Pace’s policies, practices,  programs, procedures, protocols and plans alleged herein, concerning Pace’s failure to pay  proper wages and its failure to keep adequate records.  Plaintiff’s job duties are typical of  those of the class members.  8   35.  Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives, for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of  similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum, simultaneously,  efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions  would entail. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class  action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative  exists for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.    36.  The Illinois Wage Class is readily identifiable from Pace’s own records.   Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Illinois Wage Class would  create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Illinois  Wage Class members, which would very likely establish incompatible standards of conduct for  Pace.   37.  A class action is superior to other available methods for adjudication of this  controversy because joinder of all class members is impracticable.  Further, the amounts at  stake for many of the Illinois Wage Class members, while substantial, is not great enough to  enable them to maintain separate suits against Pace.   38.  Without a class action, Pace will retain the benefit of its wrongdoing, which  will result in further damages to plaintiff and the Illinois Wage Class. Plaintiff envisions no  difficulty in the maintenance and management of this action as a class action.  39.  Upon information and belief, Pace engaged in a “time-shaving” policy, whereby  Pace failed to pay plaintiff and members of the classes for all of the hours that they worked for  Pace.  9   40.  Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective Action and Illinois  Wage Class (collectively “Class Members”) are victims of Pace’s common policies and  plans that violated their rights under the FLSA, IMWL, and IWPCA, by failing to pay proper  compensation for all hours that the Class Members worked, including Pace’s time-shaving  from employees’ hours, and failure to compensate regular and overtime hours at the proper  rates, including an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.  At  all relevant times, Pace’s unlawful policies and patterns or practices have been willful.   41.  Pace Suburban Bus Service is the foremost suburban transportation company  which services customers in the Chicago metropolitan area, including the counties of Cook,  Will, DuPage, Kane, Lake, and McHenry counties.  One of the largest bus services in North  America, Pace covers 3,446 square miles, an area nearly the size of the state of Connecticut  and about 15 times the size of the City of Chicago.   42.  Pace employs bus operators, including plaintiff, to perform transportation  services for its customers across the aforementioned Chicago metropolitan service area.   43.  At all relevant times, plaintiff was acting directly or indirectly in the interest of  Pace, and therefore defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of state and federal wage  laws.    44.  Plaintiff and the classes are all blue-collar workers who are not subject to any  of the exemptions of the FLSA, IMWL, or IWPCA.   45.  Plaintiff and other Pace bus operators worked on average of around 8 or more  hours per day and 5 or more days per week.  Plaintiff’s current hourly rate of pay is $21.57.  10   46.  Pace instituted a policy whereby plaintiff and other Pace bus operators would fill  out a “Pay Exception Slip” at the end of their shift (commonly known as a “pink slip” at the  garage where plaintiff works); this pink slip would specify the amount of excess time the bus  operator spent above and beyond Pace’s pre-designated scheduled or budgeted time (run time),  including the reason for such excess (e.g., traffic, accident, weather, etc.).  (See exhibit 2 for an  example of a pink slip and run sheet, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference).   47.  Pace instructed plaintiff and other bus operators to specifically refrain from  putting “unrealistic schedule” as a reason for their excess time; instead, Pace insisted on  employees using the term “traffic.”   48.  Once the pink slip was filled out, the bus operators would give the pink slip to a  dispatcher, who forwarded the slip to a supervisor, who would then initial the approved excess  time.   49.  Singer kept detailed records of his pink slip excess time, and he estimates that  Pace failed to pay him excess time of about $1,000 in earned wages over the relevant statutory  time period.   50.  As a transportation services company that operates throughout the Chicago  metropolitan area, there is no question that Pace has access to human resources expertise and  extensive legal counsel, who can duly advise Pace on its wage and hour compliance  obligations.   51.  During the entire relevant time period, Pace was aware that plaintiff and the  classes were not properly compensated under the FLSA, IMWL, and IWCPA, because Pace  did not keep accurate records of the time that plaintiff and the Class Members worked each  day and week.  11   52.  Pace has acted willfully and/or with reckless disregard of the applicable FLSA,  IMWL, and IWCPA provisions, by failing to properly record hours and failing to properly  compensate plaintiff and the Class Members for all of the time that they worked, including  hours worked in excess of 40 during the workweek.   53.  Furthermore, Pace failed to properly track, monitor, or record the actual number  of hours per day that the class members worked, as required by the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C.A.  § 211(c); 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.5(a), 516.6(a)(1), 516.2(c) (requiring employers to maintain  payroll records for three years and time sheets for two years, including the exact number  of hours worked each day and each week).  54.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.   55.  Plaintiff Rick Singer was an employee of Pace, working under its direct  supervision and control.   56.   Singer has been employed by Pace from approximately June 3, 2013 to the  present.    57.  At all times relevant to this complaint, Singer was an “employee” within the  meaning of Section 3(e) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e), and within the meaning of both  the IMWL and IWCPA.   58.  Singer’s paychecks failed to properly list all of his hours that he  worked for Pace, and therefore Pace failed to properly compensate him for all of  the hours that he worked, including any applicable overtime compensation.  12   59. Specifically, Singer’s actual paychecks from Pace failed to accurately reflect the  aforementioned “pink slip” excess time, and therefore Pace intentionally and willfully failed to  pay him for all of the hours that he worked for Pace.   60. For his own personal files, information, and records, Singer made a practice of  taking the data that he filled-out on the pink slips, and duplicating this data with specific  notations, on his daily “trip cards.”   61. A “trip card” is a pre-trip checklist that each bus operator fills out before his daily  shift, and so Singer’s personal calculations of unpaid excess work time, the impetus for this  action, is based largely on the difference between the excess time that he worked for Pace, and  corresponding shortages of actual pay that he received on his paychecks from Pace.  (See exhibit  3 for an example of a trip card, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference).   62. These shortages of pay are derived from those hours that Pace failed to properly  reflect and compensate plaintiff for the aforementioned approved pink slip excess time.    63.  On more than one occasion, Singer brought this pay shortage issue to the  attention of Pace payroll personnel and management, and after noticing a 1-hour pay shortage  on one of his checks, Singer had a conversation with Louella Morgan, administrative  secretary and payroll.   64.  This conversation with Morgan took place in or around January/February 2017,  and to plaintiff’s recollection, either superintendent Laura Lindsey or division manager Mike  Cutler were present; however, Morgan ended the conversation rather abruptly, telling plaintiff  something to the effect of, ‘our records are right and you’re wrong’—declining Singer’s  request to see the time sheets.  13   65.  Article 15(e) of the Pace North Shore Division union contract states that:  “employees shall be paid for all time during which they are required by Pace North Shore to  perform any duties.”  (See exhibit 4 for the pertinent part of the contract, attached hereto and  incorporated herein by reference).    66.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action members are “similarly situated,”  as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), because, among other things, all such individuals  worked pursuant to Pace’s previously described common pay practices and, as a result of  such practices, were not paid for all of the time that they were required by Pace to perform  duties, including regular hours and the legally mandated overtime premium for hours worked in  excess of 40 during the workweek.  67.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.   68.  Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective Action are non-exempt  employees entitled to be paid regular and applicable overtime compensation for all of the  hours that they worked.   69.  In violation of the requirements of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a)(1) and  207(a)(1), Pace employed plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective Action for  workweeks longer than 40 hours, but willfully failed to compensate plaintiff and the FLSA  Collective Action members for all of the time that they worked, including time in excess of  40 hours per week, at the required rate of at least 1.5 times their regular rate of pay.  14   70.  Pace’s compensation scheme applicable to plaintiff and the FLSA Collective  Action members fails to comply with 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a)(1) and 207(a)(1).   71.  Plaintiff has expressed his consent to make these claims against Pace by filing a  written consent form pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  (See exhibit 1).   72.  Pace failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with respect to its  compensation of plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action members.   73.  Because Pace’s violations of the FLSA were willful, a 3-year statute of  limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.   74.  As a consequence of the willful underpayment of wages alleged above, plaintiff  and members of the FLSA Collective Action incurred damages thereby, and Pace is indebted  to them in the amount of the unpaid regular and overtime compensation, together with  interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, all in an amount to be determined at  trial of this action.  75.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.   76.  Pace has employed plaintiff and members of the Illinois Wage Class and has  failed to pay them for all of the time that they worked, in violation of the requirements of the  84.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.   85.  By the course of conduct set forth above, Pace has violated the IWPCA.   86.  Due to Pace’s violations of the IWPCA, plaintiff and the Illinois Wage  Class is entitled to recover from Pace all of their unpaid regular and overtime compensation,  and such other legal and equitable relief stemming from Pace’s unlawful and willful conduct,  as the Court deems just and proper.   87.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Illinois Wage Class, seeks recovery of  liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid by Pace as provided by the  Plaintiff Rick Singer   Violation of the FLSA for unpaid regular and overtime wages  (Brought on behalf of plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action)   Violation of the IWPCA for unpaid regular and overtime wages  (Brought on behalf of plaintiff and the Illinois Wage Class)   Violation of the IMWL for unpaid regular and overtime wages  (Brought on behalf of plaintiff and the members of the Illinois Wage Class)  