10.  Accordingly, Sinh Sinh is an enterprise engaged in commerce under the FLSA and is subject  to its minimum wage and overtime provisions.   11.  In the alternative, if Sinh Sinh is not subject to the FLSA, it is subject to the TMWA.    12.  Sinh Sinh did not record the hours Tepaz and the putative class members worked.   13.  Sinh Sinh paid Tepaz and the putative class members in cash.   14.  Tepaz worked five days per week, from 7 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.  Accordingly, Tepaz regularly  worked 50 or more hours per week.    16.  Sinh Sinh did not pay the extra premium required by the FLSA for hours worked in excess  of forty hours per week.   17.  Minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since July 24, 2009.   18.  The weekly equivalent of Tepaz’s salary, when when divided by the number of hours he  worked in the workweek, resulted in wages that were below the minimum wage of $7.25 required by  the FLSA and the TMWA.   19.  Further, Sinh Sinh did not pay hours Tepaz worked over forty in any workweek at one and  one-half times his regular rate.    20.  Sinh Sinh knew Tepaz worked over forty hours per week.   21.  Sinh Sinh knew that Tepaz’s salary, when reduced to its hourly equivalent, was less than  minimum wage.   22.  Sinh Sinh knew Tepaz was not paid overtime at time and one-half his regular rate of pay.   23.  Sinh Sinh has already been sued for the same payroll practices that caused Tepaz to not be  paid minimum wage and overtime.   24.  Sinh Sinh knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its payroll practices violated the  minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA. Accordingly, Sinh Sinh willfully violated the  FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions.  25.  Sinh Sinh also employed other kitchen workers similarly situated to Tepaz. These potential  class members are similarly situated to Tepaz because they were denied overtime pay under the same  salary payroll policy that applied to Tepaz as described above.    27.  Like Tepaz, the putative class members were employees that performed manual labor similar  to that performed by Tepaz, including: cleaning, preparing food, and washing dishes. Notice of this  collective action is, therefore, properly sent to:  All kitchen workers employed by Sinh Sinh Restaurant Corporation who were  paid a salary and who worked over forty hours in any workweek during the  last three years.   28.  The putative class members, like Tepaz, were also denied minimum wage in workweeks  when the weekly equivalent of their bimonthly salary, divided by the number of hours they worked  in the workweek, resulted in a wage less than minimum wage.  7.  Sinh Sinh employed Tepaz as a dishwasher in Sinh Sinh Cafe, a restaurant located in  Houston, Texas.   8.  Sinh Sinh had gross annual sales in excess of $750,000 during at least the last three years.   9.  Sinh Sinh had two or more employees who handled, sold, or worked on goods or materials  that were produced for interstate commerce, including kitchen supplies, cash registers, phones, and  restaurant equipment.  