(Class Action)   Violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act    (Class Action)  Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act    (Class Action)   Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law    (Individual Action)  RETALIATION and WRONGFUL TERMINATION   10.  Plaintiff is an individual security officer who was employed by Defendants from  approximately February of 2000 until March 1, 2015.     11.  Defendant, PROTECH SECURITY GROUP, INC. contracts with various  construction sites, commercial locations and private individuals to provide security services.     12.  During the applicable statute of limitations period, Defendants would assign  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated security officers to such construction sites, commercial  locations or private individuals for the purpose of providing security and patrol services.    13.  At all relevant times, Defendants required Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees to patrol and monitor their assigned sites for scheduled periods of time.  Defendants  scheduled the shifts for all of its security officers, including Plaintiff.   Plaintiff and other  similarly situated employees were required to remain onsite until another security officer  relieved them from their post.   If Plaintiff’s, or another similarly situated security officer’s,  scheduled shift ended and a relief security officer was not present, Defendants required the on- duty security officer to stay at their assigned site past their scheduled shift until another security  officer arrived to relieve them from their post.    14.   At all relevant times, Defendants trained and instructed Plaintiff and its similarly  situated employees on how to perform their job duties.   4   15.  At all relevant times, Defendants additionally controlled, supervised and  monitored Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated security officer’s work by regularly sending  management personnel to visit worksites and checking on Plaintiff and its similarly situated  security officers and employees.    16.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated security officers were not allowed breaks,  including for meals, and were required to monitor and patrol their assigned sites continually for  the duration of their shifts until they were relieved from their post.     17.   Defendants’ routinely and continually did not pay Plaintiff and their similarly  situated employees for all time worked and committed unlawful employment practices that  included, but are not limited to:   a.   docking hours from Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for  alleged violations of  Defendants’ rules and/or policies;   b.    docking hours from Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees if  they were minutes late for their scheduled shifts;   c.  docking hours from Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees if  management arrived at a site and a security officer  was found to be offsite  for any reason, including to eat or obtain food;   d.  incorrectly calculating and/or eliminating hours worked from Plaintiff’s  and other similarly situated employees’ time sheets for reasons other than  those stated above, or for no reason; and   e.  wrongfully classifying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as  independent contractors when they were employees.   5   18.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated security officers typically worked sixteen to  twenty-four hour shifts in a single day and typically worked five to six days per week.  As a  result, Plaintiff and other similarly situated security officers typically worked well in excess of  forty hours in most individual work weeks.   19.  At the end of each week, Plaintiff and other similarly situated security officers  were required to send Defendants timesheets documenting their site location and hours worked.    20.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated security officers were paid different rates  depending on their assigned sites.  Plaintiff was typically paid $10.00 per hour by Defendants.    21.  At all relevant times, Defendants knew and were aware at all times that their  security officers routinely worked in excess of forty hours per individual work week.   Nonetheless, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and their similarly situated employees overtime  wages for hours worked in excess of forty hours during individual work weeks, as required by  Federal and Illinois wage and hour law.    22.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were all subject to Defendants’  uniform policies and practices and were victims of Defendants’ schemes to deprive them of  regular and overtime pay.  As a result of Defendants’ improper and willful failures to pay  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in accordance with the requirements of Federal  and Illinois wage and hour law, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees suffered lost  wages and other damages.    23.  Continually and throughout his employment, Plaintiff complained to  management, including but not limited to Keith Benson, about not being paid for hours worked,  often as punishment for alleged violations of Defendants’ rules and policies.   6   24.   Continually and throughout his employment, Plaintiff complained to  management, including but not limited to Keith Benson, about not receiving overtime wages.      25.  In retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints regarding Defendants’ failure to pay  Plaintiff for certain work hours and the non-payment of overtime wages, Defendants  reprimanded Plaintiff, threatened to remove him from job sites and, ultimately, terminated his  employment in March of 2015.   27.  With respect to the IMWL, IWPCA and FLSA claims, Plaintiff, William Hudson,  seeks to represent a class that is comprised of and defined as:   “All security officers and patrol personnel who worked for Defendant PROTECH  SECURITY GROUP INC., its subsidiaries, affiliated companies and/or predecessors at  any time during the relevant statute of limitations period.”     28.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action under F.R.C.P. 23 because:   a.  This class is so numerous that joinder of all the claims is impracticable;   b.  There are questions of law or fact that are common to the class and predominate  over any variations or individual issues that may exist between members of the  Plaintiff class;   c.  The claims of the Representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class;  and   d.  The Representative Plaintiff will fairly and accurately protect the interests of the  class.   7  Numerosity   29.  While the precise number of members of the Class has not yet been determined at  this time, Class Plaintiff believes Defendants have employed in excess of one hundred persons  who have been subject to Defendants’ common unlawful pay practices during the Violation  Period.   Commonality   30.  There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to  members of the class including, but not limited to:   a.  Whether Defendants’ complained of practices violated the Illinois  Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq., the Illinois Wage Payment  and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards  Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.;   b.  Whether Defendants failed to compensate class members for all the work  they assigned, required, encouraged, suffered or permitted class members  to perform;   c.  Whether Defendants failed to keep true and accurate records for all time  worked;  d.  Whether Defendants failed to compensate class members for all work  performed in excess of forty hours per workweek with overtime premium  wages;   e.  Whether Defendants willfully failed to comply with federal and state wage  and hour laws;   f.  Whether Defendants improperly classified and compensated Plaintiff and  the class members as independent contractors instead of hourly employees  g.  Whether Plaintiff and the other class members were injured by  Defendants’ conduct, and the measure of damages and/or injunctive relief  to which Plaintiff and the class are entitled.   8   31.  These and other questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class  are important and predominate over questions, if any, which may affect only individual  members.   Adequacy   32.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of each Class member in  that Plaintiff was a typical employee subject to Defendants’ payment practices and has no  interest antagonistic to the other members of the class. Furthermore, Plaintiff has retained  competent legal counsel experienced in class action litigation.   Typicality    33.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of all members of the class in that  Plaintiff and the putative class members were or should have been employed by Defendants as  hourly workers subjected to and damaged by Defendants’ alleged unlawful payment practices.   Plaintiff’s claims and relief sought, monetary damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and  costs, are predominately common with each class member  .Superiority   34.  A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy because individual joinder of the parties is impracticable. Class  action treatment will allow numerous similarly situated persons to prosecute their common  claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently and without the unnecessary duplication of  effort and expense that would be incurred if these claims were brought individually. The  presentation of separate civil actions by individual class members could create a risk of  inconsistent and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for the  9  Defendants and/or substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect their  interests.   35.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class, hereby re-alleges and  incorporates paragraphs 1-34 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.    35.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class, hereby re-alleges and  incorporates paragraphs 1-34 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.    35.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class, hereby re-alleges and  incorporates paragraphs 1-34 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.    35.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class, hereby re-alleges and  incorporates paragraphs 1-34 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   16   36.  This count arises from Defendants’ violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29  U.S.C. § 201, et seq. in failing to pay overtime wages and properly compensate Plaintiff and  other similarly situated individuals for the actual time they worked and for all time worked in  excess of forty hours in individual work weeks.    36.   This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the matters alleged herein pursuant  to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.    36.  This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the matters alleged herein pursuant  to 28 U.S.C. § 1367   36.  Continually and throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff  complained to management, including but not limited to Keith Benson, about having hours  docked from his actual hours workedas punishment for alleged violations of Defendants’ rules  and policies.     37.  At all relevant times Defendants are and were “employers” and the Plaintiff and  class members are and were “employees” under Illinois statute 820 ILCS § 115/1 et seq.   37.  Defendants are “employers” and Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are  “employees” under Illinois Statute 820 ILCS § 105 et seq.   37.   Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were directed by Defendants to  work in excess of forty hours per individual work week.    37.   Continually and throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff  complained to management, including but not limited to Keith Benson, about having time  eliminated and/or incorrectly calculated and shorted from his actual hours worked.    38.  Defendants “docked” Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals’ hours for  alleged violations of Defendants’ rules, polices and standards and often, for no reason at all.     38.  Continually and throughout his employment with Defendants Plaintiff complained  to management, including but not limited to Keith Benson, about not receiving overtime wages  for weeks in which he worked in excess of forty hours      38.  Illinois Statute 820 ILCS § 105 et seq. requires employers to pay employees  minimum wage for all hours worked.     38.  Illinois Statute 820 ILCS § 115/1 et seq., Illinois Wage Payment and Collection  Act, defines wages as “any compensation owed to an employee pursuant to an employment  contract or agreement between the two parties...”  Payment to separated employees is termed  “final compensation” and is defined as “wages, salaries, earned commissions, earned bonuses  and any other compensation owed the employee by the employer pursuant to any employment  contract or agreement between the two parties.”    39.  In response to Plaintiff’s complaints about being “docked” time worked, not being  paid for all hours worked and his complaints regarding non-payment of overtime wages, Plaintiff  was reprimanded, told he would be removed from job assignments and eventually, on or  aboutMarch 1, 2015, was terminated from his employment with Defendants.    39.  Section 105/4(a) requires employers to pay employees one and a half times their  regular rate for all hours worked over forty hours per individual work week.    39.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are  entitled to be compensated at their regular pay rate for all time worked, including any “docked”  time, and at a rate of one and one half times their regular pay rate for all time worked in excess  of forty hours in individual work weeks.    39.   Illinois statute 820 ILCS § 115/4 requires employers to pay employees all wages  earned by an employee during a semi-monthly or bi-weekly pay period no later than 13 days  after the end of the pay period in which such wages were earned.  Illinois Statute 820 ILCS  §115/5 provides that “every employer shall pay the final compensation of separated employees  12  in full, at the time of separation, if possible, but in no case later than the next regularly scheduled  payday for such employee.”   40.   Defendants violated Illinois Statute 820 ILCS § 105 et seq. by regularly and  repeatedly failing to compensate Plaintiff and other class members as employees for the actual  time they worked each week, including unpaid overtime at one and a half times their regular,  hourly rate, for all hours worked per week in excess of forty hours during the violation period.    40.  At all times relevant, there was an agreement between Defendants, on the one  hand, and Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees on the other hand, that Defendants  would pay them an hourly wage in exchange for all time worked as security officers and patrol  personnel, and there was no agreement allowing Defendants to dock and/or eliminate time  actually worked from Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’wage calculations..    40.   Defendants’ failure and refusal to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees for all time worked, and overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty hours  per individual work week, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.   15   40.  The Illinois Minimum Wage Act, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq.,  Illinois Wage Payment  and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201  et seq. prohibit employers from retaliating against employees for complaints regarding non- payment of earned wages.     41.   Defendant routinely “docked” Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’  time when Defendants’ supervisors or management believed Plaintiff or other similarly situated  employees had violated one of Defendants’ rules, policies or standards it had in place for its  security officers and patrol personnel.  Defendant breached its agreement to pay Plaintiff and all  other similarly situated individuals an hourly wage for all time worked by “docking” pay to  Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals for alleged violations of rules, policies or  standards.    41.  Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by  “docking” and/or eliminating Plaintiff’s and similarly situated employees’ time worked by  purposefully refusing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all time worked  and purposefully refusing to pay overtime wages for time worked in excess of forty hours in an  individual work week.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, WILLIAM HUDSON, individually and on behalf of the class,  prays for judgment against Defendants, PROTECH SECURITY GROUP, INC. and KEITH  BENSON, and each of them, as follows:   a.  Certifying the class of individuals who were employed by Defendants as  hourly paid, non-exempt employees in the State of Illinois at any time  during the relevant statute of limitations period;  b.   Compensating Plaintiff and the other class members in the amount owed  for all time worked including one and one half times Plaintiff’s and other  similarly situated employees’ hourly rate for all time worked in excess of  forty hours per individual work week;  c.  Appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the class;   d.  Appointing WILLIAM HUDSON as Class Representative;   e.  Awarding liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid  wages and overtime wages found due;   f.  Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action; and  g.  Providing for such relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.   41.   Defendants knowingly and willfully violated Illinois and Federal wage and hour  statutes when it terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for his complaints regarding Defendants’ wage  and hour policies and practices.    41.  Additionally, Defendants’ policy and practice of docking and/or eliminating hours  from Plaintiff’s and other class members’ timesheets violated Illinois Statute 820 ILCS § 105 et  seq.   42.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered and  continues to suffer lost wages and other damages.    17  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, WILLIAM HUDSON, individually, prays for judgment against  Defendants PROTECH SECURITY GROUP, INC. and KEITH BENSON, and each of them, as  follows:  a.  Declaring conduct of Defendants, and their agents/employees as described herein,  is in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Act, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq., Illinois  Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. and/or the Fair Labor  Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207;   b.  Awarding compensatory and punitive damages;   c.  Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and  d.   Providing for such relief as the Court deems just and equitable.   42.   As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and  other class members have suffered and continue to suffer lost wages and other damages.   10   42.  Defendants breached its agreement to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated  individuals by routinely eliminating hours worked and/or incorrectly calculating the total time  worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated security officers.    43.  Defendant violated Illinois Statutes 820 ILCS § 115 et seq. by regularly and  repeatedly failing to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated class members for the  actual time they worked each week within 13 days of the date such compensation was earned and  by failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and class members their rightful wages by the next  scheduled payday after their separation.   13   43.  Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to injunctive relief to prevent  Defendant from continuing its violations of these statutory provisions and other appropriate  class-wide injunctive relief for the class.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, WILLIAM HUDSON, individually and on behalf all others  similarly situated prays for judgment against the Defendants, PROTECH SECURITY GROUP,  INC. and KEITH BENSON, and each of them, as follows:   a.   Certifying the class of individuals who were employed by Defendants as  hourly paid, non-exempt employees in the State of Illinois at any time  during the relevant statute of limitations period;   b.   Appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the class;   c.  Appointing WILLIAM HUDSON as Class Representative;   d.  Declaring and finding that the Defendants committed one or more of the  following acts:   i.  violated provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage Act, 820 ILCS §  105 et. seq. by failing to pay minimum wage to Plaintiff and all  class members for time worked; and/or   ii.  violated provision of the  Illinois Minimum Wage Act, 820 ILCS §  105 et. seq. by failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and all  class members; and/or  iii.  violated provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage Act, 820 ILCS §  105 et. seq., by eliminating hours from Plaintiff and class members  pay calculations for alleged violations of Defendants’ rules and  policies or for no reason at all.   e.  Awarding compensatory damages, including all regular and overtime pay  owed, in an amount according to proof;   f.  Awarding interest on all regular and overtime compensation due accruing  from the date such amounts were due;   g.  Awarding all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting  this claim;   h.  Granting leave to amend to add claims under applicable state and federal   11  law;   i.   Granting leave to name additional Plaintiffs by motion or any other  method approved by Court;   j.   Entry of a Permanent Injunction barring Defendants from engaging further  in practices that violate the Illinois Minimum Wage Act, 820 ILCS 105/1  et seq.; and   k.   Providing  such relief as the Court deems just and equitable.   44.   As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and  similarly situated individuals have suffered and will continue to suffer lost wages and other  damages.   45.  Plaintiffs are also entitled to class-wide injunctive relief to prevent Defendants  from continuing its violations of these statutory provisions and other appropriate class-wide  injunctive relief.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, WILLIAM HUDSON, individually and on behalf of the other  class prays for judgment against Defendants PROTECH SECURITY GROUP, INC. and KEITH  BENSON, and each of them, as follows:    a.   Certifying the class of individuals who were employed by Defendants as  hourly paid, non-exempt employees in the State of Illinois at any time  during the relevant statute of limitations period;   b.   Appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the class;   c.  Appointing WILLIAM HUDSON as Class Representative;   d.  Declaring and finding that the Defendants violated provisions of the  Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act 820 ILCS § 115 et seq. by  “docking” Plaintiff’s and other class members pay and failing to pay  Plaintiff and the other class members wages for all time worked;   e.  Awarding compensatory damages, including all wages owed, in an  amount according to proof as provided by statute;   f.  Awarding interest on all regular and overtime compensation due accruing  from the date such amounts were due;   g.  Awarding all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting  this claim;   h.  Granting leave to amend to add claims under applicable state and federal   law;   i.   Granting leave to name additional Plaintiffs by motion or any other  method approved by Court;   14  j.   Entry of a Permanent Injunction barring Defendants from engaging further  in practice that violate the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820  ILCS 115/1 et seq.; and   k.   Providing for such relief as the Court deems just and equitable.  