10.  Advantage employs CDMs, including the Plaintiff, to be responsible for inventory and  advertising display within as many as 45 assigned retail stores within a designated geographic region.     11.  The CDMs are organized into teams that are singularly focused on a manufacturer and/or  class of trade, such as grocery, mass, drug, home improvement, convenience, club, military, and natural.   Plaintiff is one of a group of CDMs in the North American Nutrition team who are focused on Gatorade  and Quaker products (the “Gatorade CDMs”).   12.  The principal job duties of Gatorade CDMs are to make sure that their assigned products  are properly stocked, priced and displayed within the shelf space at each of the CDMs’ assigned stores.   32.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216, Plaintiff seeks to prosecute their FLSA claims as a collective  action on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly employed by Advantage as Gatorade CDMs in  the United States at any time since December 2016 (the “Collective Action Period”) who were not paid  for hours actually worked as well as for overtime compensation at rates not less than one and one-half  times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek (the “Collective  Action Members”).   33.  There are numerous similarly situated current and former Gatorade CDMs throughout the  country who would benefit from the issuance of a Court-supervised notice of the instant lawsuit and the  opportunity to join the instant lawsuit. Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendant and  are readily identifiable through Defendant’s records.   34.  Plaintiff and other Gatorade CDMs are similarly situated because they all had similar  duties; performed similar tasks; were subjected to the same requirements under the FLSA to be paid  overtime wages unless specifically and properly exempted thereunder; were not so exempted; were  subjected to similar pay plans; were required, suffered, or permitted to work, and did work, in excess of  forty hours per week; and were not paid at a rate of one and one-half times their respective correct regular  rates of pay for all such overtime hours worked.  35.  Plaintiff Foster (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed as a class action with regard to Plaintiff’s  California law claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following class  of persons:   All persons employed by Advantage within the State of California as a  Customer Development Manager in the North American Nutrition team at  any time since December 2016.   42.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all Collective Action Members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.   43.  During the Collective Action Period, Advantage has been, and continues to be, an  employer engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the FLSA.   44.  During the Collective Action Period, Advantage employed, and/or continues to employ,  Plaintiff and each of the Collective Action Members within the meaning of the FLSA.   45.  During the Collective Action Period, Advantage has had annual gross revenues in excess  of $500,000.   46.  During the Collective Action Period, Advantage had a policy and practice of  misclassifying the Gatorade CDMs, including Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members, as exempt  under the FLSA.   52.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all California class action members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.   53.  Since at least December 2016, Advantage required Plaintiff and California class members  to work in excess of eight (8) hours per workday and forty (40) hours per workweek. However,  Advantage failed to fully pay the overtime wages that Plaintiff and California class members earned.   54.  California Labor Code § 510 and the applicable Wage Order require that an employer  compensate all work performed by an employee in excess of eight (8) hours per workday and forty (40)  hours per workweek, at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay.   58.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all California class action members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.   59.  California Labor Code § 512(a) states in pertinent part: “[A]n employer may not employ  an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a  meal period of not less than 30 minutes. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period  of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less  than 30 minutes . . . .”   60.  Wage Order Nos. 4 and 7 each state, in relevant part, “No employer shall employ any  person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes.”   If no meal period is provided, the Wage Orders require the employer to “pay the employee one (1) hour  of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not  provided.”   65.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all California class action members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.   66.  The applicable Wage Order states in pertinent part, “Every employer shall authorize and  permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each  work period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of  ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof. . . . If any employer fails to  provide and employee a rest period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the  employer shall pay the employee on (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for  each workday that the rest period is not provided.” Labor Code § 226.7(a) states that “no employer shall  require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the  Industrial Welfare Commission.”   67.  Since at least December 2016, Advantage failed to provide Plaintiff and California class  members rest periods as required by Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and Wage Order No. 7-2001.   70.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all California class action members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.   71.  California Labor Code § 226 provides, in relevant part, that every employer must furnish  each employee with an itemized wage statement that shows the total number of hours worked each pay  period, gross wages, net wages, all deductions, all applicable hourly rates of pay, the name and address  of the legal entity that is the employer, and other information.   72.  During the period starting around December 2016 to the present, Advantage willfully  failed to furnish Plaintiff and California class members, upon each payment of compensation, itemized  wage statements accurately showing, at a minimum: gross wages earned, total hours worked, net wages  earned, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during pay period and the corresponding number of hours  worked at each hourly rate by the employee.   73.  During all relevant times, Plaintiff and California class members were injured by these  failures because, among other things, they were confused about whether they were paid properly and/or  they were misinformed about how many total hours they worked in each pay period.   74.  California Labor Code § 226(e) provides that an employee suffering injury as a result of  not being provided with an accurate itemized wage statement is entitled to recover the greater of all  actual damages suffered or fifty ($50) dollars for the initial violation and one-hundred ($100) dollars for  each subsequent violation, up to $4,000. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226(g), Plaintiff and California class  members are entitled to injunctive relief to ensure Advantage’s compliance with Labor Code § 226.   75.  Plaintiff and California class members are entitled to an award of costs and reasonable  attorneys’ fees under Labor Code § 226(h).   77.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all California class action members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.   78.  California Labor Code § 201 provides that any discharged employee is entitled to all  wages due at the time of discharge.   79.  Where an employer willfully fails to pay discharged or quitting employees all wages due  as required under the California Labor Code, the employer is liable to such employees under California  Labor Code § 203 for waiting time penalties in the amount of one (1) day’s compensation at the  employees’ regular rate of pay for each day the wages are withheld, up to thirty (30) days.   80.  During all relevant times, Advantage knowingly and willful violated California Labor  Code §§ 201 and 202 by failing to pay Plaintiff and California class members who are no longer  employed by Advantage all wages owed as alleged herein. Advantage is therefore liable to Plaintiff and  California class members who are no longer employed by Advantage for waiting time penalties as  required by California Labor Code § 203.   81.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and similarly situated California members, also requests  further relief as described below.  82.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all California class action members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.   83.  California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unfair competition in  the form of any unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent business practices.   84.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action individually and as representatives of all others subject  to Advantage’s unlawful acts and practices.   9.  Among its various services, Advantage operates a retail delivery and management service  through which it delivers the consumer products of its clients to retail stores.   Failure to Provide Mandated Meal Periods  [Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and 1194, and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 §§ 11040, 11070]   Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Termination  [Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, and 256, and Wage Order No. 7-2001]   Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements  [Cal. Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.3, and Wage Order No. 7-2001]   Failure to Provide Mandated Rest Periods  [Cal. Labor Code § 226.7, and Wage Order No. 7-2001]   Unfair Competition Law Violations  [Cal. Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.]   [Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 11984 et seq.  and Wage Order No. 7-2001]   [Fair Labor Standards Act]  