(Class Action)   (Collective Action)   11.  Styrolution is a global styrenics supplier that provides styrenic applications for  many common products across a wide range of industries.       12.  The Company schedules Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class working in maintenance  responsibilities for eight and a half (8.5) hour shifts, which include a thirty (30) minute unpaid  meal break. In addition, the Company schedules members of the Plaintiff Class working in  operations, logistics and the lab for twelve (12) hour shifts without a specified meal break.  Thus,  because Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class typically work at least five (5) days per week, they are  scheduled to work forty (40) hours or more per week.     13.  The Company has a dress code policy for its hourly employees at the Channahon  facility.  Specifically, according to Styrolution’s policy “[e]mployees working in Operations,  Maintenance, Logistics, and the Lab are required to wear the uniform provided by the company  and safety shoes.”  The dress code policy also refers to a Company safety procedure for Personal  Protective Equipment.  4   14.  The Personal Protective Equipment that Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are  required by Styrolution to don and doff each day at the beginning and end of their shifts includes  flame-retardant coveralls, steel-toed boots, safety glasses, and a hard hat.   15.  The Personal Protective Equipment is required because Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff  Class work with, and are exposed to, dangerous chemicals as part of the Company’s business.   16.  Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are required to be ready for work at the start of  their shift.  As such, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class must arrive prior to the start of their  scheduled shift in order to don their Personal Protective Equipment.   17.  It typically takes Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class between five (5) and ten (10)  minutes to don their Personal Protective Equipment.   18.  After donning their Personal Protective Equipment, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff  Class walk approximately 250 yards from the employee locker room to the Company’s  manufacturing floor and/or a meeting room (collectively “work station”), whereupon they begin  their shift.   19.  It typically takes Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class between two (2) and five (5)  minutes to walk from the employee locker room to their work station before their shift.   20.  In total, it would take Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class up to fifteen (15) minutes  to complete their pre-shift activities.   21.  Although the above-described pre-shift activities are an integral and indispensable  part of the principal work activities for which Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are employed,  Styrolution does not compensate Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class for said time.  5   22.  Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are required by Styrolution to stay at work until  the end of their shift.  Moreover, the Company prohibits them from leaving their work stations  before being properly relieved by the next shift.   23.  At then end of their shift, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class would walk  approximately 250 yards from their work station to the employee locker room, whereupon they  would doff their required Personal Protective Equipment.   24.  It typically takes Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class between two (2) and five (5)  minutes to walk from their work station to the employee locker room at the end of their shift.   25.  It typically takes Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class between five (5) and ten (10)  minutes to doff their Personal Protective Equipment.   26.  In total, it would take Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class up to fifteen (15) minutes  to complete their post-shift activities.   27.  Although the above-described post-shift activities are an integral and  indispensable part of the principal work activities for which Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are  employed, Styrolution does not compensate Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class for said time.   28.  Thus, the Company failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class at a rate  of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay (the “overtime rate”) for all time  worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual workweeks.     29.  Styrolution does compensate certain contractors for the time they spend doffing  the same Personal Protective Equipment Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are required to don and  doff.  6  30.  Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 – 29 as though fully set forth herein.     31.  This Count arises from Defendant’s violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et  seq., for Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated at the overtime rate  for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.     32.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this action may be maintained by a plaintiff who  has been damaged by a defendant’s failure to comply with 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 – 207.  Plaintiffs  attach as Group Exhibit A their Notices of Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff in a Collective  Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.     33.  All past and present hourly employees who have worked for Defendant at its  Channahon, Illinois facility during the previous three (3) years in Operations, Maintenance,  Logistics and/or the Lab, and were required to don and doff Personal Protective Equipment at the  beginning and end of their respective shifts, are similarly situated to Plaintiffs.     34.  Defendant applied its compensation policies, which violate the FLSA, on a  company-wide basis, including towards Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.   35.  Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are or were engaged in job duties and  responsibilities integral and indispensable to the operation of Defendant’s business, and neither  Plaintiffs nor any other member of the Plaintiff Class has received proper overtime compensation  for all hours worked over forty (40) in one workweek.   36.  Defendant’s failure to pay compensation for all time worked and, as a result, its  failure to pay compensation at the overtime rate for all hours worked over forty (40) per  workweek, is a willful violation of the FLSA, since Defendant’s conduct shows that it either  7  knew that its conduct violated the FLSA or showed reckless disregard for whether its actions  complied with the FLSA.   37.  Plaintiffs’ experiences are typical of the experiences of the putative class  members.   38.  For all members of the Plaintiff Class to become fully aware of their right to join  this cause of action, a certain period of time, as determined by this Court, is necessary to send  notice to the entire Plaintiff Class, as well as certain additional time for those members to file  consent forms with this Court as provided by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   39.  The members of the Plaintiff Class who are still employed by Defendant may be  reluctant to raise individual claims for fear of retaliation.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated  persons, known and unknown, respectfully requests that this Court enter an order as follows:  a)  Awarding judgment for back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid wages for the  three (3) years preceding the filing of this Complaint, according to the applicable  statute of limitations for willful violations of the FLSA;  b)  Awarding liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid  overtime compensation found due pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);  c)  Awarding prejudgment interest with respect to the amount of unpaid overtime  compensation;  d)  Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing this action;   e)  Entering an injunction precluding Defendant from violating the Fair Labor  Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; and  f)  Ordering such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate and just.  8  40.  Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 – 29 as though fully set forth herein.    41.  This Count arises from Defendant’s violation of the IMWL, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat.  105/1, et seq., for Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class at the overtime rate  for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.     42.  Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were entitled to be compensated for all work  performed, including but not limited to time spent donning and doffing required Personal  Protective Equipment.   43.  Pursuant to the IMWL, for all weeks during which Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff  Class worked in excess of forty (40) hours, they were entitled to be compensated at the overtime  rate.   44.  Defendant has violated the IMWL by failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the  Plaintiff Class at the overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.   45.  Plaintiffs seek certification of this lawsuit as a class action in order that their  rights and those of the Plaintiff Class, including all overtime and other wages due, , statutory  damages, prejudgment interest and any other damages due, be resolved.     46.  This action is brought as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because the  number of individuals who comprise the Plaintiff Class is so numerous that joinder of all Class  members is impracticable.  While the precise number of members of the Class has not been  determined at this time, Plaintiffs believe Defendant has employed in excess of fifty (50)   persons who have been subject to Defendant’s common unlawful pay practices during the  statutory three (3) year period preceding the filing of this Complaint.  9   47.  Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class have been equally affected by Defendant’s failure  to properly pay overtime wages.     48.  The Plaintiff Class members who are still employed by Defendant may be  reluctant to raise individual claims for fear of retaliation.   49.  The issues involved in this lawsuit present common questions of law and fact,  which predominate over any variations that may exist between members of the Class.   50.  Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff Class, and Defendant have a commonality of interest in the  subject matter and remedy sought.   51.  Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of  the members of the Plaintiff Class.   52.  Plaintiffs’ Counsel is competent and experienced in litigating large wage and hour  class and collective actions.   53.  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 to the  members of the Class, to the Court, and to Defendant.  Accordingly, a class action is an  appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this lawsuit and distribution of the  common fund to which the Class is entitled.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated  persons, known and unknown, respectfully requests that this Court enter an order as follows:  a)  Determining that this action may be maintained as a class action under Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23(b)(3);  b)  Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and their Counsel as Class  Counsel;  c)  Awarding judgment in an amount equal to all unpaid back pay owed to Plaintiffs  and all others similarly situated pursuant to the IMWL;  10  d)  Awarding prejudgment interest on the back pay in accordance with 815 Ill. Comp.  Stat. 205/2;  e)  Awarding statutory damages pursuant to the formula set forth in 820 Ill. Comp.  Stat. 105/12(a);  f)  Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing this action;  g)  Entering an injunction precluding Defendant from violating the Illinois Minimum  Wage Law, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/1 et seq.; and  h)  Ordering such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.  Dated: January 22, 2019  Marc J. Siegel, IARDC No. 6238100  Bradley Manewith, IARDC No. 6280535  James D. Rogers, IARDC No. 06324570 