14.  Plaintiff, Bart Deardorff is a resident of the State of Illinois and a former  employee of Defendants.   15.  Plaintiff brings claims 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  employees of ATI who were, are, or will be employed by ATI during the period  of three (3) years prior to the date of commencement of this action through the  date of judgment in this action, who were not compensated at one-and-one-half  times the regular rate of pay for all work performed in excess of forty (40) hours  per work week.  5   16.  FLSA violation claims are brought and maintained as an “opt-in” collective action  pursuant to § 16(b) of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for all FLSA claims asserted by  the Plaintiff, since the FLSA claims of the Plaintiff are similar to the FLSA claims  of all service employees employed by ATI.   17.  Defendant is liable for improperly compensating Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  under the FLSA, and as such notice should be sent to the FLSA Collective. There  are numerous similarly situated current and former employees of ATI who have  been denied proper payment of the overtime wages. These current, former and  future employees would benefit from the issuance of a court supervised notice of  the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join in the present lawsuit. The  similarly situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily identifiable  through Defendant’s records.  18.  Plaintiff is employed by ATI as an employee of the Defendant who work beyond  forty hours, but for which Defendants failed to pay overtime at the proper and  correct rate of pay.   55.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference all the paragraphs of this  complaint, as if fully set forth herein.   56.  Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant pursuant to the IMWL.   57.  Plaintiff was employed by ATI as a “Service Tech”.   58.  It is and was at all relevant times, a policy of ATI to pay its employees at an  overtime rate of pay which does not include the added compensation earned as  11  commissions and/or to not pay employees for certain hours of work such as  “admin work” or some training and travel time.   59.  It is a policy, procedure and job requirement of Defendant ATI its employees to  pay its employees at an overtime rate of pay which does not include the added  compensation earned as commissions or earned bonuses   60.  The Defendants unlawful conduct was and is not inadvertent, de minimis, isolated  or sporadic, but widespread, repeated and part of a pattern and practice of conduct  affecting most if not all of the Defendant’s employees.   61.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be  determined at trial.   62.  Illinois law contains a three-year statute of limitations regardless of whether the  violation was willful. 820 ILCS 105/12(a).  63.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference all the preceding paragraphs, as if  fully set forth herein.   64.  Plaintiffs were employed by ATI.   65.  It is and was at all relevant times, a policy of ATI to pay its employees at an  overtime rate of pay which does not include the added compensation earned as  commissions or earned bonuses and/or pay for all hours worked.   66.  The Defendants unlawful conduct was and is not inadvertent, de minimis, isolated  or sporadic, but widespread, repeated and part of a pattern and practice of conduct  affecting all Defendants’ employees.  12   67.  Further that Defendant’s forced Plaintiff to work “off-the-clock”.   68.  This cause of action arises out of employment contracts or agreements; written  and/or oral.   69.  The Defendants unlawful conduct was and is not inadvertent, de minimis, isolated  or sporadic, but widespread, repeated and part of a pattern and practice of conduct  affecting all Defendants’ employees.   70.  Upon information and belief, all class employees of the Defendant had the same  policies imposed upon its employees.   71.  Plaintiff was under the control and direction of the owner of the Defendant and/or  his agents during the period of the Plaintiff employment under their contracts of  service and in fact.    72.  Plaintiff was not an independent contractor, rather were employee of the  Defendant by oral agreement and/or written contract.    73.  Plaintiff’s employment was in the usual course of business for which such service  is performed.    74.  Plaintiff does not possess a proprietary interest in the Defendant.   75.  The Defendants are “employers” under the terms of the IWPCA section 2.   76.  In accordance with IWPCA, an employer is also defined as: “any officer of a  corporation or agents of an employer who knowingly permit such employer to  violate the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be the employers of the  employees of the corporation”, the individual Defendants are named as  Defendants pursuant to this clause.   13  77.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference all the preceding paragraphs, as if  fully set forth herein.   78.  The Collective claims include all plead claims found in this complaint which fall  within the coverage of FLSA.   79.  The Collective claims include all employees which Defendant has failed to pay at  an overtime rate of pay which does not include the added compensation earned as  commissions or earned bonuses and/or failed to pay all overtime hours of work.   80.  At all relevant times, Defendants ATI has been, and continues to be, an  “employer” engaged in interstate commerce and/or in the production of goods for  commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.  At all relevant  times, Defendants has employed, and continues to employ, “employee[s],”  including the Plaintiffs, and each of the members of the FLSA Opt-Ins, that have  been, and continue to be, engaged in interstate “commerce” within the meaning of  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.  At all relevant times, Defendants has had gross  operating revenues in excess of Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars  ($500,000.00).   81.  At all relevant times, Defendants has engaged, and continue to engage, in a willful  policy, pattern, or practice of requiring their employees, including the Plaintiff  and members of the prospective FLSA Class, to work in excess of forty (40)  hours per week without compensating such employees to pay its employees at an  14  overtime rate of pay which does not include the added compensation earned as  commissions or earned bonuses.   82.  At all relevant times, the work performed by retail employees including the  Plaintiffs and prospective FLSA Opt-Ins, employed at Defendant were, and  continue to be, required or permitted by Defendants, for the benefit of  Defendants, directly related to such employees’ principal employment with  Defendants, and as an integral and indispensable part of such employees’  employment of Defendants.   83.  As a result of the Defendant willful failure to record or compensate its employees  – including Plaintiff and members of the prospective FLSA Class – employed by  Defendant for all hours worked, Defendant has violated, and continues to violate,  the maximum hours provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), and § 215(a).   84.  As a result of the Defendant’s willful failure to record, report, credit, and/or  compensate its employees employed by Defendant, including the Plaintiff and  members of the prospective FLSA Class, Defendant has failed to make, keep and  preserve records with respect to each of their employees sufficient to determine  the wages, hours and other conditions and practices of employment in violation of  the FLSA, including 29 U.S.C. §§211(c) and §§ 215(a).   85.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged, violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.   86.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all FLSA Opt-Ins, seek damages in the amount  of their respective unpaid compensation, plus liquidated damages, as provided by  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and such other legal and equitable relief as the  Court deems just and proper.  15   87.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all FLSA Opt-Ins, seek recovery of attorneys’  fees and costs of action to be paid by Defendant, as provided by the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).   88.  Plaintiff has consented to be a party to this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   89.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and all FLSA Opt-Ins were employed  by Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA.   90.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and all FLSA Opt-Ins were engaged  in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce and/or Defendant  were an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for  commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   91.  Due to Defendant’s FLSA violations, Plaintiff  and all FLSA Opt-Ins are entitled  to recover from Defendant their unpaid compensation, an additional equal amount  as liquidated damages, additional liquidated damages for unreasonably delayed  payment of wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of the action, pursuant to  29 U.S.C. § 216(b)§ 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 206, 9 FCA  title 29, § 206, provides that every employer shall pay to each of his employees  who is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce or in the production of goods  for such commerce, wages at specified hourly rates.   A.  ATI policies and procedures and Compensation Practices fail to pay proper  overtime rate of pay   Claims Against Defendant  Under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law “IMWL”   Claims Against Defendant  Under Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act “IWPCA”   KENNETH J LOSACCO      )  And  )  Maria Losacco  )  as individuals under FLSA   )  and Illinois Wage Laws  )  Defendants.  )  On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Opt-In Employees  Against Defendant ATI  As a Collective Action  (FLSA Claims, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.)  