(Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500, et seq.)   12.  Plaintiff was hourly, non-exempt employee.    13.  Plaintiff and other hourly, non-exempt employees were required to perform work  in excess of forty (40) hours per week as an integral and indispensable part of the  principle activities of performing their jobs.    14.  Plaintiff and other hourly, non-exempt employees were frequently interrupted  from their bona fide meal periods, and in many instances, were unable to have a  meal period at all. Defendant failed to, and continues to fail to, compensate  employees for this time.   15.  Further, Defendant has at all relevant times, maintained a practice of rounding  employees time to the nearest 15 minute interval, while at the same time,  maintaining a discipline policy that allows it to discipline employees for tardiness.   16.  Defendant’s unlawful policy causes Plaintiff to work in excess of forty (40) hours  per week.    17.  Plaintiff was not properly compensated for this work at the applicable rate of pay.    18.  The Defendant employs/employed other employees, who, like the Plaintiff,  are/were required to perform the same or similar work in excess of forty (40)  hours per week.    20.  These “similarly situated” employees were not properly compensated for their  work at the legal and proper rate of pay.   21.  The FLSA requires each covered employer, such as Defendant, to compensate all  non-exempt employees for all hours worked and to compensate them at a rate of  not less than one and one-half the regular rate of pay for work performed in  excess of forty hours in a work week.   22.  All similarly situated employees working for Defendant are similarly situated in  that they all are subject to Defendant’s same compensation and timekeeping  policies that deny Plaintiffs compensation for all hours worked in a workweek,  including overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours  per week.     23.  The quantum meruit claims are brought against Defendant under Rule 23 of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a class action consisting of all current and  former hourly employees who were required to perform work without proper  compensation and who have worked for Defendant at any time during the last five  years.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees,  seeks relief on a class basis challenging Defendant’s failure to pay the class for all  hours worked and overtime wages.   25.  The Missouri Wage and Hour claims (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500, et seq.) are  brought against Defendant under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  as a Missouri state-wide class action consisting of all current and former hourly  employees who were required to perform work without compensation and who  have worked for Defendant as a Missouri employee at any time during the last  three years.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated  employees, seeks relief on a class basis challenging Defendant’s failure to pay the  class for all hours worked and overtime wages.   26.  Plaintiff brings Count I (FLSA) as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated  employees, seeks relief on a collective basis challenging Defendant’s practices of  requiring unrecorded work without pay, as well as failing to pay Plaintiff and  other similarly situated employees for all overtime hours worked. The class for  the FLSA claims is defined as:  All current and former hourly, non-exempt personnel of  Defendant  who  performed  work  without  proper  compensation at any time during the last three years.   27.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), FLSA claims may be pursued by those who opt-in  to this case.   28.  Plaintiff’s consent to join form is attached as Exhibit A.   30.  Count III (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500, et seq.) is a class action pursuant to Rule 23  of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against Defendant.  Plaintiff, individually  and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, seeks relief on a class basis  challenging Defendant’s practice of requiring unrecorded and unpaid work and  failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for overtime hours  worked.  The Missouri Wage Rule 23 class is defined as:  All current and former personnel who performed work without proper  compensation during the past five years.   32.  Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant satisfy the numerosity,  commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority requirements of a class action.   33.  The class satisfies the numerosity standards as it is believed to number over one- hundred.  As a result, joinder of all class members in a single action is  impracticable.  Class members may be informed of the pendency of this class  action through direct mail.   35.  The aforementioned common questions predominate over any questions affecting  individual persons, and a class action is proper as it relates to consistency,  economy, efficiency, fairness, and equity.   36.  The claims of Plaintiff are typical of those of the Class in that class members have  been employed in the same or similar positions as the Class Representative and  were subject to the same or similar unlawful practices as the Class Representative.   37.  A class action is the appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy.  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally  applicable to the class.  The presentation of separate actions by individual class  members could create a risk of inconsistent and varying results, establish  incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant, and/or substantially impair or  impede the ability of class members to protect their interests.   38.  The Class Representative is an adequate representative of the class because her  interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the class he seeks to  represent.  The interests of the members of the class will be fairly and adequately  protected by the Class Representatives and their undersigned counsel, who has  experience in employment and class action lawsuits.   40.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    41.  Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at the Defendant's hospital in North  Kansas City, Missouri.     42.  At this site, Plaintiff performed work both before and after her work shift as an  integral and indispensable part of the principle activities of performing her job,  and/or was clocked out for meal periods, notwithstanding the fact that she was  unable to have an uninterrupted meal period.     43.  Said work often caused Plaintiff to work in excess of forty (40) hours per week.    44.  Plaintiff was not properly compensated for this work at the applicable rate of pay.    45.  Plaintiff was treated as a non-exempt employee by the Defendant under the  59.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every averment of this  Complaint as though fully set forth herein.    60.  Defendant has been enriched through making deficient payments for work  performed by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.   Defendant was  enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees  because Plaintiff and others were not properly compensated for their work.     61.  Defendant intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees at the proper rate for all hours worked and for time worked in excess  of forty hours per week.  Defendant knows or should know the proper rate of pay  for Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.  Such wrongful conduct  demonstrates bad faith on the part of Defendant.   62.  It is unjust for Defendant to retain the benefits from the unpaid work performed  by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant on Count II of  the Complaint; for notice to be sent to a class of similarly situated employees; for an  award of restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and for  such other orders and further relief, including an award of costs and attorney’s fees, as  this Court deems just and equitable.  64.  At all times material herein, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have  been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under Mo. Rev. Stat.  § 290.500, et seq.   65.  Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.502 regulates the payment of minimum wages and Mo. Rev.  Stat. § 290.505 regulates the payment of overtime compensation by Missouri  employers.   66.  Defendant is subject to the minimum wage requirements of Mo. Rev. Stat. §  290.502 and the overtime pay requirements of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.505 because it  is an employer in the state of Missouri under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500(4) and  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Defendant are employees under  Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500(3).   67.  Defendant violated Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 290.502 and 290.505 by failing to properly  pay employees for all hours worked and failing to pay employees for overtime.  In  the course of perpetrating these unlawful practices, Defendant willfully failed to  keep accurate records of all hours worked by employees as required by Mo. Rev.  Stat. § 290.520.   68.  Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees are victims of an unlawful and  entity-wide compensation policy.  Defendant continues to apply and enforce this  policy and thereby continues to violate Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 290.502 and 290.505.   70.  Defendant acted in bad faith and without reasonable grounds to believe its actions  and omissions were compliant with Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 290.502 and 290.505.  As a  result thereof, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are entitled to  recover an award of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of  unpaid overtime pay described above, pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.505.     71.  As a result of these willful violations of the wage and overtime provisions under  Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.505, wages and overtime compensation have been  unlawfully withheld by Defendant from Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees for which Defendant is liable pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 290.505;  290.527, together with an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,  pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of  this action.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, and all similarly situated employees, demand judgment  against Defendant and pray for:  for notice to be sent to a class of similarly situated  employees; compensatory damages; liquidated damages; attorneys’ fees and costs as  allowed by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.527; for prejudgment and post-judgment interest as  provided by law; and (5) for such other relief the Court deems fair and equitable.   73.  At Defendant's request, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees provided  services in the form of work for Defendant.  These services had reasonable value  and were performed at an hourly rate.    74.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly would work off the  clock before work and after work without being compensated for this time.    75.  Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees  the reasonable value of these services performed on Defendant's behalf.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant on Count IV of  the Complaint; for notice to be sent to a class of similarly situated employees; for an  award of restitution and for such other orders and further relief, including an award of  costs and attorney’s fees, as this Court deems just and equitable.  Respectfully submitted, 