29.   Defendant hired Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees to perform  various food and beverage service tasks.     30.   Plaintiffs and others similarly situated hold or held the title of server.  Their duties  were typical of those associated with their role. Their duties primarily consisted of serving food  and drinks to patrons. They had to wait on tables and describe daily specials. They were required  to regularly check on patrons throughout their meal. At the end of a customer’s meal, they were  also required to collect payment.   31.   In exchange for their work, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated typically  received tips from patrons. However, they also performed work that did not give them the ability  to earn tips. This work did not involve interacting with, nor serving food and beverages to  customers.    32.   Plaintiffs and other servers had to perform various preparatory tasks. They had to  prepare and affix labels to sauces, prepare the drink machines and ensure the sugar caddies were  full. They also spent a considerable amount of time polishing dishes and were constantly required  to roll silverware throughout their shifts.   33.   Plaintiffs and other servers also had to perform tasks relating to sanitation, health  and maintenance.  Sanitizing the kitchen and dining areas are common examples. They also had  to bag and take out the trash.     35.   For the performance of this work, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated did not  have the opportunity to earn tips. These tasks were often performed out of the customers’ sight or  at times customers were not present.    36.   At all times relevant, Defendant required Plaintiffs and other servers to perform all  of the tasks described above, regardless of whether these tasks gave them the ability to earn tips.    37.   Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees performed their tasks to the extent  required by Defendant.    38.   For the aforementioned work, from approximately May 2017 to February 2018,  Plaintiff Belt was classified as a tipped employee. In addition to tips, he received bi-weekly  payments reflecting an hourly tip-credit wage of two dollars and thirty-five cents ($2.35) per hour.    39.   Plaintiff Council was also classified as a tipped employee. From approximately  November 2014 to the present, she received bi-weekly payments reflecting an hourly tip-credit  wage of two dollars and thirty-five cents ($2.35) per hour, as well as tips.     40.   Plaintiff Harris was also classified as a tipped employee. From September 1, 2015  until the present, he received bi-weekly payments reflecting an hourly tip credit rate of two dollars  and thirty-five cents ($2.35) per hour, plus tips.    41.   For the entirety of his employment, Plaintiff Belt worked at the P.F. Chang’s in  McLean, Virginia.   42.   Plaintiff Council was employed at the P.F. Chang’s in Warrington, Pennsylvania.  She also worked at the P.F. Chang’s in Princeton, New Jersey.   43.   For the entirety of his employment, Plaintiff Harris worked at the P.F. Chang’s in  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.    46.   Plaintiffs and others similarly situated regularly performed these untipped tasks  throughout their shifts.  During a given shift, they would spend approximately two (2) to four (4)  hours performing this untipped work.    47.   Much of this untipped work was completed while Plaintiffs and others similarly  situated were “clocked in” as tipped employees.  Thus, they were only paid their tip-credit rate for  their work; they failed to receive the full minimum wage.    48.   Defendant used a standard point-of-sale system to record the hours worked by both  its tipped and non-tipped employees. Through this system, Defendant could have created different  “clock in” codes that would have allowed tipped employees to clock in at the full minimum wage  rate when performing non-tipped work, while clocking in at a subminimum, tip-credit wage rate  when serving customers.   49.   Defendant failed to utilize this system to account for the times when Plaintiffs and  others similarly situated performed non-tipped related tasks.  At all times that Plaintiffs and others  similarly situated were on-the-clock, the tip-credit wage rate was enforced.    50.   Despite the nature of their work, Plaintiffs were treated as tipped employees, even  when they were assigned to perform tasks that did not give them the opportunity to earn tips.     51.   Defendant’s unlawful pay practices caused Plaintiffs and others similarly situated  to be denied the wages they rightfully earned. They were consistently paid below the minimum  wage for the untipped work they performed.    52.   There is no bona fide dispute that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees  are owed at least the minimum wage during periods when they spent more than twenty (20) percent  of their time performing untipped work.     54.   Defendant was well aware of the untipped work being performed by Plaintiffs and  others similarly situated.     55.   Defendant knew that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees customarily  spent more than twenty (20) percent of their time performing untipped work.    56.   In bad faith, Defendant withheld the minimum wages owed to Plaintiffs and others  similarly situated.     57.   As a direct result of not receiving the required minimum wage for each hour of  work, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were also not paid correctly for overtime.  During weeks when they worked over forty (40) hours, they were never paid at time and a half the  rate that their regular hourly wage should have been.     58.   Thus, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs seek their  wages owed and other available relief through this Complaint.    59.   Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees work or worked as servers for  Defendant. Defendant employs servers across the United States.   60.   Upon information and belief, these similarly situated employees were subject to the  same unlawful practices described within this Complaint; Defendant paid these similarly situated  employees a tip-credit rate when they performed untipped work. This practice was in violation of  the FLSA.    61.   The FLSA requires employers to compensate non-exempt employees such as  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated with at least the minimum wage for each hour of work.    63.   The FLSA requires that the non-tipped work related to a tipped employee’s  occupation cannot exceed twenty (20) percent of his or her time worked.  If the non-tipped work  exceeds twenty (20) percent, the tipped employee must receive the full minimum wage.    64.   Defendant knew, or should have known, that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated  tipped employees were performing non-tipped work related to their tipped occupation.  This work  regularly exceeded twenty (20) percent of their time worked. Defendant failed to properly pay the  full minimum wage rate for this work. As a direct result, Plaintiffs and other servers also failed to  receive proper overtime compensation. During weeks when they worked over forty (40) hours,  they were not paid “time and a half” at the rate their regular wage should have been.     65.   Pursuant to the FLSA, Plaintiffs commence this collective action on behalf of  themselves and those similarly situated for the payment of minimum and overtime wages owed  for all hours worked. Plaintiffs make these same demands on behalf of all members of the  collective class.    66.   Plaintiffs consent to be Party Plaintiffs in this matter; Plaintiffs’ consent forms are  attached to this Complaint as Exhibits 1 – 3.     67.   It is likely that other individuals will join Plaintiffs during the litigation of this  matter and file written consents to “opt in” to this collective action.   68.   There are numerous similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant  that have been harmed by Defendant’s common scheme to underpay its employees in violation of  the FLSA.     69.   These similarly situated persons are known to Defendant and/or are readily  identifiable through Defendant’s records.      71.   Upon information and belief, others similarly situated will choose to join Plaintiffs  in this action and opt in to this lawsuit to recover unpaid wages and other available relief.    72.   Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure on behalf of themselves and other employees, current and former, that served as servers  for Defendant and were subject to the following practices and policies: denial of minimum and  overtime wages under the PMWA for hours worked over forty (40) in a single workweek.   73.   Plaintiffs are members of the proposed class they seek to represent.   74.   The claims alleged by Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class  members.    75.   The potential members of the class are sufficiently numerous so that joinder of all  class members is impractical.     76.   There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over any  questions exclusive to the individual class members.   77.   Counsel for the proposed class is qualified and experienced in litigating class  actions and other complex litigation matters; furthermore, counsel is capable of providing adequate  representation for all members of the proposed class.    78.   A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this case and will serve to promote judicial economy to the benefit of this Court,  as well as the involved parties.    80.   Plaintiffs are members of the proposed class they seek to represent.   81.   The claims alleged by Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class  members.    82.   The potential members of the class are sufficiently numerous enough so that joinder  of all class members is impractical.     83.   There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over any  questions exclusive to the individual class members.   84.   Counsel for the proposed class is qualified and experienced in litigating class  actions and other complex litigation matters; furthermore, counsel is capable of providing adequate  representation for all members of the proposed class.    85.   A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this case and will serve to promote judicial economy to the benefit of this Court,  as well as the involved parties. 