37.  Named Plaintiffs were employed and currently work for Defendants in Defendants’  Northern Virginia branch.   38.  Plaintiffs’ job duties include safely and appropriately setting up work-zones in  accordance with state or local Department of Transportation and Safety policies and procedures;  reading, understanding and following safety policies and managers’ instructions; placing traffic  control devices, signs, and markers in compliance with work zone diagrams; maintaining safety  zones while directing movement of vehicular traffic through work zones using sign, hand, and flag  signals; wear and maintain personal protective equipment (“PPE”); ensure Defendants’ customers’  workers are warned of any impending work zone violation if an incoming vehicle does not adhere  to work zone; ensure all safety equipment, vehicles, lights, signs and company owned property is  handled in a safe careful manner; among other duties.    39.  Defendants compensate Flaggers, Crew Chiefs, or similar positions, on an hourly  basis.  Defendant classifies these employees as non-exempt under the FLSA.    40.1-28.10.   41.  Additionally, Plaintiffs typically work one to two Saturdays or Sundays per month.  During such weeks, Plaintiffs work approximately twelve (12) hour shifts, six (6) days per week,  with a thirty (30) minute unpaid lunch break per shift, which Defendants automatically deduct  from Plaintiffs’ time.   42.  Prior to May 2021, Defendants did not require Plaintiffs to record their hours  worked. Instead, Defendants determined Plaintiffs’ hours worked by taking the time recorded on  the first and last “billing tickets” of each day, which are invoices generated for Defendants’ clients.  Defendant would use the time shown on the first billing ticket of the day as Plaintiffs’ “start” time  and would use the time shown on the last billing ticket of the day as Plaintiffs’ “end” time.    43.  Starting in May 2021, Defendants now require Plaintiffs to record the time they  arrive at Defendants’ shop in the morning until they leave for the first job site on paper timesheets.  However, Defendants do not compensate Plaintiffs at their appropriate regular or overtime rate for  this time, and instead compensate Plaintiffs at a minimum wage rate for whatever hours are  reflected on these timesheets. Otherwise, Defendants still do not compensate Plaintiffs for their  post-shift work, and still use the “billing tickets” to determine “start” and “end” times for Plaintiffs’  shifts.   45.  During the relevant period, Plaintiffs typically perform approximately ninety (90)  minutes of post-shift work each workday, including picking up cones, cleaning up road flares,  picking up signage, traveling back to Defendants’ shop, unloading equipment from work trucks,  inspecting equipment and vehicles for damage, and numerous other tasks to properly wind down  Plaintiffs’ shifts. Because these duties must be performed after the time that is recorded on the last  “billing ticket” of the day, which Defendants use as the “end time” for Plaintiffs’ shifts, Plaintiffs’  time engaged in such post-shift activities are not properly captured or compensated.   46.  This required, pre- and/or post-shift work has to be performed before the “start” of  each shift and following the “end” of each shift. The pre-shift work is necessary in order for  Plaintiffs to fulfil their job duties while on job sites. Additionally, the post-shift work is necessary  to adequately wind down Plaintiffs’ work for the day and to protect Defendants’ equipment,  vehicles, and property.   47.  Defendants, through their actions, directives, and policies, mandated that Plaintiffs  perform this pre- and/or post-shift work.   48.  If Plaintiffs do not perform this pre- and/or post-shift work, they risk receiving  verbal and written warnings on their records.  Multiple verbal and written warnings could result in  disciplinary action or termination from employment.   50.  Prior to May 2021, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs for any work  performed prior to the time listed on the first “billing ticket,” or any work performed after the time  recorded on the last “billing ticket.” After May 2021, Defendants now compensate Plaintiffs for  pre-shift work and hours reflected on paper time sheets, but Defendants only do so at a minimum  wage rate, not Plaintiffs’ regular rate or proper overtime rate. Additionally, Defendants still do not  compensate Plaintiffs for any post-shift work completed.   51.  Indeed, while Defendants compensate Crew Chiefs at the minimum wage rate for  travel time to the first job site and travel time from the last job site, Defendants do this on an  approximate basis via the time displayed in Google Maps. Defendants do not compensate any other  Plaintiff, including Flaggers, for the time spent traveling to the first job site and time spent traveling  from the last job site.   52.  While Defendants do provide Crew Chiefs with some compensation for travel time,  Defendants do not compensate Crew Chiefs for all of the travel time to the first job site and travel  time from the last job site because Defendants do not compensate Crew Chiefs for the actual time  spent traveling by Crew Chiefs, but rather pay Crew Chiefs for the time that is reflected in a GPS  search using Google Maps. This method does not account for factors which could increase travel  time from the time quoted by Google Maps, such as traffic, streetlights, inclement weather, and  other factors. Every other employee, other than Crew Chiefs, are not paid for the time they spend  traveling at all.   54.  Further, Defendants have a policy of automatically deducting a thirty (30) minute  lunch break from Plaintiffs’ time each day, despite Plaintiffs often working through this time and  not being able to take lunch breaks.    55.  Upon starting his employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Nelson was  informed by his Facility Manager at the time, Quinton Garnett, that a thirty (30) minute lunch  break would be automatically deducted from his time each workday.    56.  While Quinton Garnett, who is now Area Manager for Defendants, has stated that  Defendants look at notations on billing tickets to determine whether Plaintiffs took a lunch break  for that day, and subsequently follow up with Plaintiffs if no notations are present, Named  Plaintiffs have never been asked by Defendants if they were unable to take a lunch break.   57.  Plaintiffs are often not able to leave the job sites to take a lunch break for a variety  of reasons. For instance, Plaintiffs are often on job sites where they have to control the flow of  traffic around construction sites. These construction sites have numerous hazards, such as holes in  the ground, which require the constant presence of Plaintiffs to direct traffic around the hazards.  Thus, Plaintiffs are unable to take any break whatsoever until such hazards are neutralized.   58.  Defendants’ managers are aware that Plaintiffs often work through their lunch  breaks. Defendants’ managers inform Plaintiffs upon hire that Plaintiffs might need to eat their  lunch when driving between job sites or that they might not be able to eat lunch at all. Despite this,  Defendants still automatically deduct a thirty (30) minute lunch break from Plaintiffs’ time,  regardless of whether Plaintiffs actually take a lunch break.   60.  On average, Plaintiffs worth through their lunch breaks approximately four (4) to  five (5) days per week.   61.  Defendants also do not properly pay Plaintiffs for the undercounted overtime hours  that Defendants list on Plaintiffs’ earnings statements. Such overtime hours are undercounted  because of the aforementioned pre-and/or post-shift work performed, travel time, and  automatically deducted lunch breaks, which Defendants do not compensate Plaintiffs for.  However, Plaintiffs are not properly compensated at the appropriate overtime rate even for the  overtime hours that Defendants list on Plaintiffs’ earnings statements. This is because Defendants  often list “OT” line items on Plaintiffs’ earnings statements with a certain amount of “hours” on  the line item, but do not compensate Plaintiffs for this time.   62.  Additionally, any payments that are made to Plaintiffs under the “OT” line items in  Plaintiffs’ earnings statements do not accurately match the proper overtime compensation and  proper overtime rate that Plaintiffs are entitled to pursuant to the FLSA, VMWA, and VWPA.   63.  Beginning in early 2021, Defendant began to include a line item on one of  Plaintiffs’ earnings statements for “retro pay.” Incredibly, even though Defendants have included  this line item on Plaintiffs’ earnings statement, Plaintiffs have not actually been paid any of the  “retro pay” listed.    65.  Defendants’ failure to compensate for all pre-and/or post-shift work performed,  travel time, and automatically deducted lunch breaks has affected all Plaintiffs similarly.  66.  Named Plaintiffs bring the First Cause of Action of the instant Complaint as a  collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated  employees.   67.  Members of the FLSA class are similarly situated.   68.  Members of the FLSA class have substantially similar job requirements and pay  provisions, and are subject to common practices, policies, or plans that fail to compensate them  for all work performed and fail to compensate them at the appropriate overtime rate for all hours  worked in excess of forty (40) per week.   69.  There are numerous (in excess of 300) similarly situated current and former  Flaggers, Crew Chiefs, or similar positions that fall within the scope of the aforementioned FLSA  class.   70.  These similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, are readily  identifiable, and can be located through Defendants’ records.  Members of the proposed FLSA  class, therefore, should be permitted to pursue their claims collectively, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b).   71.  Pursuit of this action collectively will provide the most efficient mechanism for  adjudicating the claims of Plaintiffs.   73.  Named Plaintiffs request that they be permitted to serve as representatives of those  who consent to participate in this action, and that this action be conditionally certified as a  collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  74.  Named Plaintiffs bring the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action of the  instant Complaint as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, for relief to redress and  remedy Defendant’s violations of the VMWA and VWPA, Virginia Code §§ 40.1-28.8 et seq.,  and 40.1-29 et seq.   75.  Plaintiffs bring their state law counts for violations of the VMWA and VWPA as a  class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf  of themselves and all similarly situated employees, for relief to redress and remedy Defendants’  violations of the VMWA and VWPA and failure to pay all wages due and owing pursuant to  Defendants’ written employment contract and/or compensation plan and/or Defendants’ failure to  pay full reasonable consideration for all compensable work duties performed for Defendants’  benefit.   76.  Pursuit of this action as a class will provide the most efficient mechanism for  adjudicating the claims of the Named Plaintiffs and the putative Class Plaintiffs.   78.  Members of the Class and/or any Subclasses will be collectively referred to as  “class members.”  Plaintiffs reserve the right to re-define the Class and add additional Subclasses  as appropriate based on investigation, discovery and specific theories of liability.   81.  Public Policy Considerations: Employers in the Commonwealth of Virginia violate  employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out  of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing actions because  they believe their former employers might damage their future endeavors through negative  references and/or other means. Class actions provide the class members who are not named in the  complaint with a type of anonymity that allows for the vindication of their rights at the same time  as affording them privacy protections.   83.  Plaintiffs hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as  though fully set forth herein.   84.  At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continue to be, “employers”  engaged in interstate “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for “commerce,” within the  meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.   85.  At all relevant times, Defendants have employed, and continue to employ,  “employee[s],” including Plaintiffs, and each of the members of the prospective FLSA Class, that  have been, and continue to be, engaged in interstate “commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA,  92.  Plaintiffs hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as  though fully set forth herein.   93.  At all relevant times, Defendants have employed, and/or continue to employ,  Plaintiffs within the meaning of the VMWA.   94.  Defendants employ Named Plaintiffs, and similarly situated employees, within the  Commonwealth of Virginia.   96.  Virginia Code § 40.1-28.8 et seq. also provides that “[f]rom May 1, 2021, until  January 1, 2022, every employer shall pay to each of its employees’ wages at a rate not less than  the greater of (i) $9.50 per hour or (ii) the federal minimum wage.”   97.  During the relevant time period, Defendants paid Plaintiffs and class members less  than minimum wages when they did not pay Plaintiffs and class members for all hours worked.   For example, whenever Plaintiffs performed pre- and/or post-shift work, travel time, or worked  through their lunch break, Defendants did not pay them at all for the time they spent working. To  the extent these hours do not qualify for the payment of overtime, Plaintiffs and class members  were not being paid at least minimum wages for their work.    98.  During the relevant time period, Defendants regularly failed to pay at least  minimum wages to Plaintiffs and class members for all hours worked pursuant to Virginia Code §   99.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and class members the required minimum  wages violate Virginia Code § 40.1-28.10.  Pursuant to Virginia Code § 40.1-29, Plaintiffs and  class members are entitled to recover the unpaid balance of their minimum wage compensation as  well as interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.  100.  Pursuant to Virginia Code § 40.1-29, Plaintiff and class members are entitled to  recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest  thereon.  101.  Pursuant to Virginia Code § 40.1-28.11, whoever knowingly and intentionally  violates any provisions of this article shall be punished by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than  $200.  Violation of the Virginia Minimum Wage Act  Virginia Code § 40.1-28.8 et seq.  Brought by Named Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and all Similarly Situated Employees   Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act  29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.   Brought by Named Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and all Similarly Situated Employees   