18.  Defendant employs a Store Manager at each of its retail stores and gas stations.   19.  Employees who work for Defendant as Store Managers are classified by  Defendant as exempt under the FLSA and state wage and hour laws.    20.  Defendant tracks Store Managers’ hours worked by requiring them to clock in and  out on company computers, and records the number of hours worked on Store Managers’  weekly pay statements.    22.  Despite the Store Managers being classified as exempt, the primary job duties of  Defendant’s Store Managers consist of non-exempt work, including customer service and  merchandising work, rather than “managerial” duties.  Specifically, Store Managers spend the  vast majority of their time performing duties such as ringing up sales on the cash register,  making coffee, customer service, putting items on shelves, and cleaning.   23.  The primary job duties of Store Managers do not materially differ from the duties  of non-exempt employees such as store associates.  Their primary duties are manual in nature.   The performance of manual labor and non-exempt duties occupies the vast majority of Store  Managers’ working hours.    24.  Pursuant to a centralized, company-wide policy, pattern and/or practice,  Defendant classifies all Store Managers as exempt from coverage of the overtime provisions of  the FLSA and state wage and hour laws.    25.  The hours for which Defendant does not pay its Store Managers are overtime  hours, for which Defendant owes the Store Managers compensation at time-and-a-half their  regular hourly rates.   26.  Through its unlawful actions, Defendant has deprived its Store Managers of  overtime wages owed to them.   28.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claim on behalf of all  similarly situated individuals who have worked for Defendant in the United States as Store  Managers, have not received overtime wages owed to them during the three-year period prior to  the filing of the Complaint, and who may choose to “opt in” to this case under the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).   29.  The claims under the FLSA meet the requirements for collective action  certification set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   30.  Defendant has engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the  FLSA, as detailed in this Complaint.   31.  All potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated as to these claims, because  they primarily perform the same or similar job duties, Cumberland Farms classified all of them  as exempt under the FLSA and did not pay them overtime, and Cumberland Farms’  compensation practices are uniform as to all potential plaintiffs and result in the alleged  violation of the FLSA.   33.  As to the claims under Massachusetts law, the proposed class meets the  requirements for class certification in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and/or M.G.L. c. 151, § 1B.   34.  Defendant has in excess of 100 stores in Massachusetts, each of which has had  one or more Store Managers during the relevant liability period. The members of the class are so  numerous that joinder is impracticable.   35.  There are issues of fact and law common to all class members because  Cumberland Farms’ misclassification of its Store Managers as exempt and its compensation  practices are uniform as to all Store Managers.  Common questions include, but are not limited  to, whether Cumberland Farms’ Store Managers classified its Store Managers as excluded under  Mass. Gen. L. c. 151 § 1A, whether Cumberland Farms’ Store Managers were subject to any  exclusion under Mass. Gen. L. c. 151 § 1A, whether Cumberland Farms’ Store Managers were  entitled to receive overtime compensation for hours worked over 40.  Common questions of law  and fact predominate over any questions affecting individual class members.   36.  The claims of Plaintiff Stafford are typical of the claims of all members of the  class, because all members of the class were subject to the same unlawful practices as set forth  herein.   37.  Plaintiff Stafford and his counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests  of the class.   39.  A class action is superior in this case for several reasons including, but not limited  to, that:  the case challenges uniform wage payment practices; many employees may be  reluctant to bring claims individually for fear of retaliation; some class members may not have  the motivation or resources to bring their claims individually; and it would be an inefficient use  of scarce judicial resources to require each employee affected by the practices challenged herein  to bring his or her own individual claim.  42.  As set forth above, Defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation to  employees who have worked for Defendant as Store Managers and have not received overtime  wages owed to them during the three-year period preceding the filing of the Complaint violates  the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207.  This claim is brought by the named Plaintiffs on  behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 