 (Class Action Claim for Violations of the FLSA Overtime Provisions  by Plaintiff and All Those Similarly Situated Class Members)    (Individual Claim for Violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act)   (Individual Claim for Violation of FLSA Overtime Wage Violations)   22.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully set forth herein.   23.  Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant within the three years preceding  the filing of this Complaint.   24.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a personal banker having the title  “personal banker,” “teller,” or an equivalent title.   25.  Plaintiff’s primary duties as a personal banker was to handle money and  accounts for Defendant’s customers.     26.  Defendant pays personal bankers an hourly rate.   28.  It is Defendant’s policy or practice to require personal bankers, including  Plaintiff, to review training materials, take customer calls, and complete transactions  with customers after the personal bankers have been “clocked out” of Defendant’s  electronic time monitoring system.    29.  Plaintiff worked over forty hours in most if not all workweeks.   30.  Plaintiff was paid 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for all reported hours he  worked in excess of 40 in each workweek, but Plaintiff was not paid for the time he  worked for Defendant off-the-clock.   31.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for his overtime hours worked at the rates  required by the FLSA.  V.  32.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully set forth herein.   33.  Plaintiff brings his claim for relief for violation of the FLSA as a collective  action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all  persons similarly situated as personal bankers who were, are, or will be employed by  Defendant and were improperly remunerated during weeks in which they worked more  than 40 hours at any time within the applicable statute of limitations period.    35.  Plaintiff is unable to state the exact number of the class but believe that  the class exceeds 3,000 persons.   36.  Defendant can readily identify the members of the class, who are a certain  portion of the current and former employees of Defendant.   37.  The names and physical and mailing addresses of the probable FLSA  collective action plaintiffs are available from Defendant, and notice should be provided  to the probable FLSA collective action plaintiffs via, among other methods, first class  mail to their last known physical and mailing addresses as soon as possible.   38.  The email addresses of many of the probable FLSA collective action  plaintiffs are available from Defendant, and notice should be provided to the probable  FLSA collective action plaintiffs via email to their last known email address as soon as  possible.   39.  The proposed FLSA class members are similarly situated in that they have  been subject to uniform practices by Defendant which violated the FLSA, including:  (a)  Defendant’s uniform underpayment to them as personal bankers for  Defendant’s business under the FLSA; and  (b)  Defendant’s failure to pay members of the class overtime  compensation in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.   41.  The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.   While the exact number and identities of Class members are unknown at this time, and  can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that at least  twenty-five (25) and as many as three hundred (300) putative class members have  worked for Defendant without appropriate pay, as described herein, during the  applicable statutory period.    42.  This litigation is properly brought as a class action because of the  existence of questions of fact and law common to the Class which predominate over  any questions affecting only individual members, including:  (a) The compensability of Plaintiff and member of the class’s time  spent reviewing training materials after the conclusion of the  workday;  (b) Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class worked off the  clock;  (c) Whether Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and members of  the Class regular wages and overtime compensation for all of  the hours over forty (40) each week;  (d) Whether Defendant properly calculated the overtime pay owed  to Plaintiff and members of the Class.   44.  Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the interests of the other members  of the Class.  Plaintiff is committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and has  retained competent counsel experienced in class litigation.  Accordingly, Plaintiff is an  adequate representative and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.    45.  A class action is an appropriate and superior method for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the present controversy given the following factors:  (a) Common questions of law and/or fact predominate over any  individual questions which may arise, and, accordingly, there  would accrue enormous savings to both the Court and the Class  in litigating the common issues on a class-wide instead of on a  repetitive individual basis;  (b) Despite the relatively small size of individual Class members’  claims, their aggregate volume, coupled with the economies of  scale inherent in litigating similar claims on a common basis, will  enable this case to be litigated as a Class action on a cost- effective basis, especially when compared with repetitive  individual litigation; and   (c) No unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the  management of this class action in that all questions of law  and/or fact to be litigated at the liability stage of this action are  common to the Class.   46.  Plaintiff is aware of no members of the proposed class who have an  interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions; neither is Plaintiff  aware of any other litigation concerning this particular controversy.    48.   Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully set forth herein.   49.  As part of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, he was eligible to  participate in a licensure program sponsored by Defendant if he met certain fixed goals.   50.  In June of 2016, after meeting the goals set by Defendant, Plaintiff  submitted his application for the licensure program.    51.  As part of his application, Plaintiff was asked to disclose any criminal  convictions or acts of distrust.   52.  After submitting his application, Plaintiff was informed by a representative  of Defendant who was responsible for reviewing Plaintiff’s application that a charge was  discovered upon investigating his criminal background, which must be cleared prior to  approval.   53.  Plaintiff submitted documents showing that the charge had been  dismissed and that Plaintiff had never been convicted, as well as a picture of his photo  identification.   55.  Plaintiff called the same representative to clarify the reasons his  application was denied and the representative threatened to report Plaintiff for  harassment.   56.  On several previous occasions, white applicants for the same licensure  program had submitted applications that failed to disclose criminal charges.   57.  On these occasions the applicants were asked to re-submit their  applications. They were not rejected as being “untruthful.”   58.  The real reason Plaintiff’s application was rejected was his race.   59.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully set forth herein.   60.  Defendant has failed and refused to comply with the FLSA’s wage  requirements by failing to pay Plaintiff one and one half times his regular rate for all  hours worked in excess of forty hours per week during Plaintiff’s employment as  described in this Complaint.   61.  More often than not, each Plaintiff worked more than forty (40) hours per  week without premium overtime pay.   62.  Defendant deprived Plaintiff of overtime compensation for all of the hours  over forty (40) per week in violation of the FLSA.    64.  Defendant is and has been subject to the overtime pay requirements of  the FLSA because it, as an enterprise, and its employees are engaged in commerce.   65.  Defendant’s conduct and practices, as described above, were willful,  intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.   66.  By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendant is liable to  Plaintiff for monetary damages, liquidated damages and costs, including reasonable  attorney’s fees provided by the FLSA for all violations which occurred beginning at least  three (3) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s initial complaint, plus periods of  equitable tolling.    67.  Defendant has not acted in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to  believe its actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and, as a result  thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to recover an award of liquidated damages in an amount  equal to the amount of unpaid overtime premium pay and unpaid minimum wages  described above pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   69.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully set forth herein.   70.  Defendant has failed and refused to comply with the FLSA’s wage  requirements by failing to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated members of the class one  and one half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per  week during their employment as described in this Complaint.   71.  Defendant required Plaintiff and similarly situated members of the class to  work in excess of forty (40) hours each week but failed to pay Plaintiff and the class  members overtime premium compensation for all of the hours in excess of forty (40) in  each workweek.     72.  Defendant deprived Plaintiff and the class members overtime premium  compensation for all of the hours over forty (40) per week, in violation of the FLSA.    73.  Defendant’s conduct and practice, as described above, has been and is  willful, intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.   75.  Defendant has not acted in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to  believe its actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and, as a result  thereof, Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to recover an award of liquidated  damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime premium wages  described above pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   76.  Alternatively, should the Court find that Defendant acted in good faith in  failing to pay Plaintiff and the class members as provided by the FLSA, they are entitled  to an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate.   IX.  77.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint  as though fully set forth herein.   78.  Defendant violated the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act  (“CMWWA”), Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-6-101 et. seq., by failing to pay Plaintiff the minimum  wages required by the CMWWA for all hours worked.   79.  Defendant has failed and refused to comply with the CMWWA’s wage  requirements by failing to pay Plaintiff one and one half times his regular rate for all  hours worked in excess of forty hours per week during Plaintiff’s employment as  described in this Complaint.   81.  Defendant is and has been subject to the overtime pay requirements of  the CMWWA because it a corporation employing persons in Colorado.   82.  Defendant’s conduct and practices, as described above, were willful,  intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.   83.  By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendant is liable to  Plaintiff for monetary damages, including unpaid wages and reasonable attorney’s fees  provided by the CMWWA for all violations which occurred beginning at least three (3)  years preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s initial complaint.  X. 