27.  Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs of this complaint as if fully alleged  herein. Plaintiff brings his first cause of action as a nationwide "opt-in" collective action  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of himself and on behalf of the following class of  persons ("FLSA Class"):  All persons who were employed as non-exempt hourly examiner-technicians  and/or inspectors in the United States, or anywhere else the FLSA governs, by  any of the Defendants during any part of the time period beginning three years  prior to the filing of the initial complaint and who elect to opt-in to this action  pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b) ("FLSA Class").   28.  The FLSA claim may be pursued by those who opt-in to this case, pursuant to 29  I U.S.C. §216(b).   29.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, seeks  I relief on a collective basis challenging, among other FLSA violations, Defendants' practice of  I failing to accurately record all hours worked, and failing to pay employees for all hours worked,  including overtime compensation. The number and identity of other plaintiffs yet to opt-in and  consent to be party plaintiffs may be determined from Defendants' records, and potential class  members may easily and quickly be notified of the pendency of this action.  California Classes   31. � The terms "Class Members", "Employees" and "other employees" refer to the  � 14 � members of these classes and subclasses, including Plaintiff.  � 15 �  32. � The California state law claims, if certified for class-wide treatment, may be  16 pursued by all similarly situated persons who do not opt-out of the California Classes. The  17 California Labor Code, Wage Order provisions, and FLSA, upon which Plaintiff bases his  18 claims, are broadly remedial in nature. These laws and labor standards serve an important  19 public interest in establishing minimum working conditions and standards. These laws and  � 20 � labor standards protect the average working employee from exploitation by employers who may  � 21 � seek to take advantage of superior economic and bargaining power in setting onerous terms and  � 22 � conditions on employment.  � 23 �  42. � Typicali : The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of all members  10 I of the Class. Mr. Viceral is a member of the proposed Classes and proposed Subclass.  � 11 � Plaintiff, himself, has suffered and been damaged by the alleged violations of the Labor Code,  12 I Wage Order, and Bus. & Prof. Code herein alleged.  � 13 �  43. � Adeauacy of Representation: � Plaintiff is fully prepared to take all  14 necessary steps to represent, fairly and adequately, the interests of the above-defined Class.  � 15 � Plaintiff s attorneys are ready, willing, and able to fully and adequately represent the Class and  16 individual Plaintiff. Plaintiffls attorneys have prosecuted and settled numerous wage-and-hour  � 17 � class actions in the past and currently have a number of wage-and-hour class actions pending in  � 18 � the California state and federal courts, as well as elsewhere in the United States.  � 19 �  45. � Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  5 paragraphs.  � 6 �  46. � Defendants engaged in a widespread pattern, policy, and practice of violating the  7 FLSA, as detailed in this Complaint.  � 8 �  47. � At all times relevant, Plaintiff and the members of the Class were engaged in  9 commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§  10 206(a) and 207(a).  � 11 �  48. � The overtime wage provisions set forth in the FLSA apply to Defendants and  121 protect Plaintiff and the Class.  13 1 �  49. � Defendants are employers engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods  14 I for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).  � 15 �  50. � At all times relevant, Plaintiff and the members of the Class were or have been  � 16 � employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 207(a).  58. � Labor Code section 510 and the applicable Wage Order provide that eight hours  � 11 � of labor constitutes a days work and that any work in excess of eight hours in one workday or '  � 12 � 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work any  � 13 � one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than 1'/z times the regular rate of pay  � 14 � for an employee.  � 15 �  59. � Labor Code section 510(a) and the applicable Wage Order provide that any work  16 in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the  � 17 � regular rate of pay for an employee, as must any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh  � 18 � day of a workweek.  iti �  60. � Plaintiff and the California Class members were regularly required to work in  � 20 � excess of eight hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a workweek (including days that exceeded 12  21 hours in a work day and workweeks that included a seventh day of work) during the Class  22 Period by being required to participate in mandatory online training courses and/or programs.  � 23 � Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff or the California Class members at the statutory rates  � 24 � for their time spent in mandatory online training courses and/or programs.  � 25 �  61. � Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiff and the California Class members for  1►~i their overtime work violated Labor Code section 510 and the applicable Wage Order,  � 27 �  63.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this  I I complaint as though set forth in full at this point.   64.  The applicable Wage Order provides, in pertinent 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, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will  complete the day's work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and  the employee." Labor Code § 512 contains parallel language.'   65.  Plaintiff alleges that he and members of the California Class were routinely not I  I relieved of all duty for an entire 30 minutes, and further, that such relief which did occur took ,  place long-after the beginning of the sixth hour of work.   66.  Labor Code § 226.7 requires that Defendants provide Plaintiff and each California l  Class member all meal periods specified in the applicable Wage Order and that Plaintiff and each  California Class member was to be paid one additional hour of pay per day at his/her regular rate  of compensation as additional wages for meal periods that were not properly provided.   67.  Plaintiff and each California Class member have suffered a loss equal to his/her  applicable hourly wage rate times the total number of times he/she was not authorized and  permitted to take the legally-required meal periods and have therefore not been paid all of the  wages due. Accordingly, Plaintiff and each California Class member are entitled to recover the I  unpaid wages in an amount to be proven at trial.  68.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this  complaint as though set forth in full at this point.   69.  The applicable Wage Order provides that every employer must 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 is based on the total hours worked each day,  at the rate of ten minutes net rest time per four hours worked or major fraction thereof. The  Wage Order declares that such 4uthorized rest period time shall be counted as hours worked for  which there shall be no deduction from wages.   70.  Labor Code section 226.7 and the Wage Order direct that if the employer fails to  provide a rest break in accordance with the Wage Order, the employer shall credit the employee  with and pay one additional hour of work at the employee's regular rate of compensation for  each workday that a rest period was not provided.   71.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not authorize and permit the rest breaks  required by the Wage Order. Plaintiff further alleges that, notwithstanding any formal written  policy to the contrary, Defendants' actual custom and business practice was to undermine any  formal policy of providing rest breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways  that omitted breaks, including, but not limited to, scheduling a heavy workload that made taking  breaks extremely difficult, maintaining an informal anti-rest-break policy enforced through  ridicule or reprimand, and exerting coercion against the taking of, creating incentives to forego,  or otherwise encouraging the skipping of legally protected breaks.   73. � Plaintiff and the California Class members are entitled to be compensated for an  2 I hour of time, at their regular rate, for each occasion when Defendants failed to provide a  3 I required rest break.  � 4 � 74. � Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this  � 9 � complaint as though set forth in full at this point.  � 10 �  75. � Pursuant to the Labor Code and the Wage Order, every employer must provide  11 I accurate itemized wage statements at the time employees are paid, showing accurate figures for,  12 inter alia, gross wages earned, total hours worked, net wages earned, and all applicable hourly  13 rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each  � 14 � hourly rate by the employee.  � 15 �  76. � Plaintiff alleges that he and the class members did not receive accurate itemized  16 wage statements, as required by law, in that the wage statements provided to them did not  17 accurately reflect correct figures for gross wages earned, total hours worked, net wages earned,  � 18 � and/or all applicable hourly rates in effect with the corresponding number of hours worked at  � 19 � each hourly rate.  � 20 �  78. � As a result of Defendants' failure to provide the accurate itemized wage  2 I I statements required by law, Plaintiff and the class members have been injured in the manner set  3 I I forth in the Labor Code in that they could not readily determine if they had been paid all earned  � 4 � wages at each pay period.  � 5 �  79. � Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to the penalty set forth in Labor Code  6 I I  section 226(e), to the civil penalty set forth in Labor Code section 226.3, to the penalty set forth  � 7 � in the applicable Wage Order, to costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.  � 8 � SIXTIi CAUSE OF ACTION  � 9 � 84. � Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this  � 9 � complaint as though set forth in full at this point.  � 10 �  85. � Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code prohibits any  11 I unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.  � 12 �  86. � Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and loss of wages and monies as a result of I  13 I I Defendants' actions.  141 �  87. � The actions of Defendants, as herein alleged, amount to conduct which is  15 I unlawful and a violation of law. As such, said conduct constitutes unfair business practices, in  16 I violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et. seq.  � 17 �  88. � Defendants' conduct as herein alleged has damaged Plaintiff and the members of  18 I the California Class by denying them wages due and payable. As a result of such conduct,  19 I Defendants have unlawfully and unfairly obtained monies owed to Plaintiff and the members of  I the California Class.  � 21 �  89. � All members of the California Class can be identified by reference to payroll and  � 22 � related records in the possession of the Defendants. The amount of wages due to Plaintiff and  23 members of the California Class can be readily determined from Defendants' records. The  24 I members of the proposed class are entitled to restitution of monies due and obtained by  25 ( Defendants during the Class Period as a result of Defendants' unlawful and unfair conduct.  � 26 �  91. � Defendants' course of conduct, acts, and practices in violation of the California  2 laws and regulations, as mentioned in each paragraph above, constitute distinct, separate and  � 3 � independent violations of Sections 17200 et seq. of the Business and Professions Code.  � 4 �  92. � The harm to Plaintiff and the members of the California Class of being  I  5 wrongfully denied lawfully earned but unpaid wages outweighs the utility, if any, of  6 Defendants' policies and practices and, therefore, Defendants' actions described herein  � 7 � constitute unfair business practices or acts within the meaning of Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200,  8 et seq.  � 9 �  93. � Defendants' conduct described herein threatens an incipient violation of I  10 I California's wage and hour laws, and/or violates the policy or spirit of such laws, or otherwise  � 11 � significantly threatens or harms competition.  121 �  94. � Defendants' course of conduct described herein further violates Bus. & Prof.  � 13 � Code §§ 17200, et seq., in that it is fraudulent, improper, and/or unfair. � I  � 14 �  95. � The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices and acts of Defendants as  � 15 � described hereinabove have injured Plaintiff and members of the California Class in that they  � 16 � were wrongfully denied the timely and full payment of wages owed to them.  � 17 �  96. � Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a direct result of their unlawful  � 18 � business practices alleged in this complaint and will continue to benefit from those practices and  19 I have an unfair competitive advantage if allowed to retain the unpaid wages.  � 20 � Civic Center Courthouee  400 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94102  The name, address, and telephone number of plafntHPs attomey, or plalnUff whhout an attomey, Is:  (Ei nombre, la direccidn y el rtetimero de fel8fono del abopedo del demandante, o del demandentee que no tiene abogado, ea):  Louis M. Marlin, Esq .(SBN 54053)  FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE AND PERMIT COMPLIANT MEAL BREAKS  (Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, 558, & 1198, and Wage Order)  (By Plaintiff and the California Class Against All Defendants)   FLSA Nationwide Collective Action   � 21 � CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER THE  � 22 � � 2 � FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT — OVERTIME WAGES  � 3 � (By Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Against All Defendants)  � 4 �  � 5 � FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS  � 6 � (Labor Code §§ 226, 226.3; Wage Order)  � 7 � (By Plaintiff and the California Class Against All Defendants)  � 8 �  � 5 � UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES  � 6 � (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)  � 7 � (By Plaintiff and the California Class Against All Defendants)  � 8 �  � 5 � FOR FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES  � 6 � (Labor Code §§ 510,1194; Wage Order)  � 7 � (By Plaintiff and the California Class Against All Defendants)  � 8 �57. � Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this  � 9 � complaint as though set forth in full at this point.  � 10 � 