(Fair Labor Standards Act Violations)   (Violations of Ohio Revised Code § 4111.03)   15.  Defendant operates over 230 senior living facilities throughout the United States,  together with its various subsidiary companies, and has over 7,000 employees.   16.  Defendant employed Plaintiff between November 2019 and April 2020 as a licensed  practical nurse (“LPN”).    17.  Defendant employed Plaintiff in a facility it previously owed in Cleveland Heights,  Ohio, called Forest Hills Place.   18.  Other similarly situated employees were employed by Defendant in nursing positions  and care staff job positions, including but not limited to LPNs, caregivers, CNAs, home health  aides, medication techs, and resident care partners (“nursing and care staff employees”).    19.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff employees were classified  by Defendant as non-exempt employees.   20.  Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff employees  on an hourly basis.     21.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff employees frequently  worked over 40 hours per week.  4   22.  Plaintiff worked on average between 60 and 70 hours each week.   (Failure to Pay for On-Duty Meal Periods)   23.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff employees were not  provided with bona fide meal periods during which they were completely relieved from duty.   24.  Defendant docked Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff  employees for a meal period each day.   25.  Defendant required Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff  employees to clock out for a 30-minute (or 1-hour) meal period each day, and they were told they  were required to clock out for a meal period.   26.  Despite the fact that Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff  employees were required to clock out for meal periods, they were not provided with bona fide meal  periods during which they were completely relieved from duty.  Instead, they frequently did not  receive any meal periods at all and/or performed worked during meal periods.   27.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff employees did not receive  meal periods and/or performed work during meal periods because of the substantial amount of work  they were required to perform, and because their communities were frequently short staffed.   28.  Plaintiff estimates that she did not receive meal periods and/or performed work  during meal periods on average 4 to 5 times each week.   29.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff employees’  supervisors(s)/manager(s) observed that they did not receive their full meal periods and/or  performed work during meal periods.    30.  As a result of Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing  and care staff employees for meal periods during which they performed work, Plaintiff and other  5  similarly situated nursing and care staff employees were denied significant amounts of overtime  compensation.   (Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation)   31.  As a result of Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff employees  not being paid for work performed during meal periods, Plaintiff and other similarly situated  nursing and care staff employees were not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they  worked over 40 each workweek.   32.  Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of  the FLSA.  (Failure to Keep Accurate Records)   33.  Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve accurate  records of all of the unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and  care staff employees.  34.  Plaintiff brings Count One of this action on her own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who have been, are being, or will be  adversely affected by Defendant’s unlawful conduct.   35.  The class which Plaintiff seeks to represent and for whom Plaintiff seeks the right  to send “opt-in” notices for purposes of the collective action, and of which Plaintiff is herself a  member, is composed of and defined as follows:  All former and current nursing and care staff employees employed  by Defendant and/or any of its subsidiaries at any period of time  between September 18, 2017 and the present.  6   36.  Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential class, but upon  information and belief, avers that it consists of more than several thousand persons.   37.  This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) as to claims for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and  costs under the FLSA.  In addition to Plaintiff, numerous current and former employees are  similarly situated with regard to their wages and claims for unpaid wages and damages.  Plaintiff is  representative of those other employees and are acting on behalf of their interests as well as her  own in bringing this action.   38.  These similarly situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily  identifiable through Defendant’s payroll records.  These individuals may readily be notified of this  action, and allowed to opt in pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of collectively  adjudicating their claims for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees  and costs under the FLSA.  39.  Plaintiff brings Count Two of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3)  on behalf of herself and all other members of the class (“the Ohio Class”) defined as:  All former and current nursing and care staff employees employed  by Defendant employed by Defendant and/or any of its subsidiaries  in Ohio any period of time between September 18, 2017 and the  present.   40.  The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.   Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential Ohio Class, but upon  information and belief, avers that it consists of at least several thousand persons.   41.  There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not  limited to the following:  7  (a) whether Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation to its  nursing and care staff employees for hours worked in excess of  40 each workweek; and  (b) what amount of monetary relief will compensate Plaintiff and  other members of the class for Defendant’s violation of R.C. §§  4111.03 and 4111.10.   42.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of other members of the  Ohio Class.  Named Plaintiff’s claims rise out of the same uniform course of conduct by Defendant,  and are based on the same legal theories, as the claims of the other Ohio Class members.   43.  The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class.   Her interest is not antagonistic to, but rather are in unison with, the interests of the other Ohio Class  members.  The named Plaintiff’s counsel has broad experience in handling class action wage-and- hour litigation, and is fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio Class in this case.   44.  The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Class predominate over  any questions affecting only individual members.  The primary questions that will determine  Defendant’s liability to the Ohio Class, listed above, are common to the class as a whole, and  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.   45.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Requiring Ohio Class members to pursue their claims individually  would entail a host of separate suits, with concomitant duplication of costs, attorneys’ fees, and  demands on court resources.  Many Ohio Class members’ claims are sufficiently small that they  would be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, and risk of pursuing their claims  individually.  Certification of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will enable the issues to be  adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.   8  46.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   47.  Defendant’s practices and policies of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated  nursing and care staff employees for meal periods during which they performed work violated the  52.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   53.  Defendant’s practices and policies of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated  9  nursing and care staff employees for meal periods during which they performed work violated the 