23.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint  inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.   24.  Plaintiff worked as a Server for Defendants at the IHOP restaurant located at 2008  N Mountain Rd., Wausau, WI 54401 from approximately March 2013 through July 2014.   25.  Plaintiff received an hourly wage of $2.33 per hour.   26.  Plaintiff also received tips from customers.   27.  Defendants classified Plaintiff as non-exempt from the FLSA and Wisconsin  overtime law.   28.  In many weeks, SOLEIMANI required Plaintiff to work over forty (40) hours.   30.  In many weeks, SOLEIMANI required Plaintiff to clock out and perform job  duties which benefited SOLEIMANI, including but not limited to rolling silverware.   31.  In many weeks, SOLEIMANI altered Plaintiff’s clock-in records, resulted in her  being paid for less hours than she worked.   32.  In many weeks, Plaintiff’s total compensation attributable to her hourly wage,  divided by her total number of hours actually worked, was below $2.13.   33.  In many weeks, Plaintiff’s total compensation (the sum of her hourly wage plus  her tips), divided by her total number of hours actually worked, was below $7.25.   34.  In weeks in which Plaintiff’s total compensation divided by her total number of  hours actually worked was below $7.25, Defendants failed to make up the difference between  Plaintiff’s total compensation and $7.25 per hour.   35.  In many weeks, Plaintiff did not receive time-and-a-half her regular rate of pay  for all hours worked in excess of forty (40).   36.  These practices are exemplified by the two-week pay period of June 9 – June 22,  2015.   37.  In this two-week pay period, SOLEIMANI paid Plaintiff for 52.49 hours of work  at a rate of $2.33 per hour.   38.  In this two-week pay period, Plaintiff’s total compensation attributable to her  hourly wage was $122.30.   39.  In this two-week pay period, Plaintiff also made $259.05 in tips.   40.  On June 10, 2014, Plaintiff worked from 9:00 AM until 3:09 PM.   42.  On June 18, 2014, Plaintiff worked from 8:00 AM until 2:25 PM.   43.   On June 18, 2014, Plaintiff was only paid for work performed between 12:37 PM  and 2:25 PM.   44.  On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff worked from 8:00 AM until 2:32 PM.   45.   On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff was only paid for work performed between 12:36 PM  and 2:32 PM.   46.  On June 22, 2014, Plaintiff worked from 9:00 AM until 3:00 PM.   47.   On June 22, 2014, Plaintiff was only paid for work performed between 2:15 PM  and 3:00 PM.   48.  In this two-week pay period, Plaintiff worked at least sixty-nine (69) hours.   49.  In this two-week pay period, Plaintiff’s effective hourly rate, exclusive of tips,  was at most $1.77.   50.  In this two-week pay period, Plaintiff’s effective hourly rate, inclusive of tips,  was at most $5.53.  51.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint  inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.   52.  Plaintiff and putative class members were non-exempt employees of Defendants  within the three years preceding this Complaint.   53.  Plaintiff and putative class members all performed similar job duties.   55.  Plaintiff and putative class members were all subject to SOLEIMANI’s  scheduling policies.   56.  Plaintiff and putative class members were all subject to SOLEIMANI’s training  policies.   57.  SOLEIMANI maintained and enforced a common policy of requiring Plaintiff  and putative class members to work over forty (40) hours in many weeks.   58.  SOLEIMANI maintained and enforced a common policy of failing to pay  Plaintiff and putative class members for all hours worked.   59.  SOLEIMANI maintained and enforced a common policy of failing to pay  Plaintiff and putative class members time-and-a-half their regular rate of pay for all hours  worked in a workweek in excess of forty (40).   60.  SOLEIMANI maintained and enforced a common policy of paying Plaintiff and  putative class members an effective hourly rate for hours below forty (40) in a workweek that  was below the federal minimum wage.  61.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint  inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.   62.  Plaintiff brings this collective action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated,  non-exempt employees of SOLEIMANI pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   64.  Plaintiff and members of the proposed collective are victims of Defendants’  widespread, repeated, systematic, and consistent illegal policies that have resulted in violations  of their rights under the FLSA and that have caused significant damage to Plaintiff and members  of the proposed collective.   65.  Defendants willfully engaged in a pattern of violating the FLSA as described in  this Complaint in ways including, but not limited to, knowingly requiring employees to work off  the clock and failing to pay them minimum wages and overtime compensation.   66.  Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA within the  meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255.   67.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate Plaintiff  and other similarly situated employees, and, as such, notice should be sent to members of the  proposed collective. There are numerous similarly situated current and former employees of  Defendants who have suffered from Defendants’ common policies described herein, and who  would benefit from the issuance of a Court-supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the  opportunity to join in the present lawsuit. Those similarly situated employees are known to  Defendants, and are readily identifiable through Defendants’ records.  68.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint  inclusive, as if set forth fully herein.   70.  The Rule 23 Class is defined as: All individuals who were employed by  SOLEIMANI in Wisconsin as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees at any time within two  (2) years prior to the filing of this complaint and present.   71.  The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although  the precise number of such persons is unknown, Plaintiff believes that at least forty (40) putative  class members have worked for Defendants during the applicable statutory period without  receiving appropriate minimum wages and overtime compensation.   72.  There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over  any questions solely affecting individual members of the class, including, but not limited to:  a. Whether Defendants unlawfully failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and  members of the proposed class in violation of Wis. Stat. § 104.02 and Wis.  Admin. Code § DWD 272.03;  b. Whether Defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and  putative class members in violation of Wis. Stat. § 103.03 and Wis. Admin.  Code § 274.03;  c. Whether Defendants unlawfully failed to pay wages to Plaintiff and putative  class members in violation of Wis. Stat. § 109.03;   73.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of putative class members. Plaintiff, like  other putative class members, was required to work off the clock and had her clock-in records  altered, which resulted in her receiving compensation below the Wisconsin minimum wage and  below time and a half her regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week.   75.  A class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where  individual employees lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute separate lawsuits in  federal court against large corporate defendants, particularly those with relatively small claims.   76.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), because questions  of law and fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual  class members, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this litigation. Defendants’ common and uniform policies and practices  denied putative class members wages for work they performed and to which they are entitled.  The damages suffered by individual class members are small compared to the expense and  burden of individual prosecution of this litigation.   77.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with  respect to the class as a whole.   78.  Plaintiff intends to send notice to all potential class members..  79.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint  inclusive, as if set forth fully herein.   81.  The FLSA requires each covered employer to compensate all non-exempt  employees at a rate not less than the federal minimum wage for all hours worked.   82.  During the applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiff performed work for which  she received less than the federal minimum wage.   83.  The FLSA requires each covered employer to compensate all non-exempt  employees at a rate not less than one and none and one-half times their regular rate of pay for  work performed in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.   84.  During the applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiff performed work in excess of  forty (40) hours per workweek without receiving overtime compensation.   85.  Defendants’ practices violate the FLSA including, but not limited to, 29 U.S.C. §§  206 and 207. Because of these violations, Plaintiff has suffered a wage loss.   86.  Defendants’ violation of the FLSA was willful.   87.  Defendants’ violation of the FLSA was not in good faith.   88.  Because Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, as aforesaid, a three (3) year  statute of limitations applies to such violation, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.   89.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was illegally deprived of wages for each  hour worked and overtime compensation earned, in such amounts to be determined at trial, and is  entitled to recovery of such total unpaid amounts, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest,  costs, reasonable attorney’s fees and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b).  90.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint  inclusive, as if set forth fully herein.   92.  At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continues to be, an “employer”  within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 103.001, 104.01 and 109.01(2).     93.   At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of Wis. Stat.  §§ 103.001(5), 104.01(2), and 109.01(1r).   94.   Wisconsin law requires an employer to pay overtime compensation to all non- exempt employees. Wis. Stat. § 103.02; Wis. Amin. § DWD 274.03.   95.  Wisconsin law requires employers to pay employees at least the minimum wage  for all hours. Wis. Stat. § 104.03; Wis. Admin. § DWD 272.03.   96.   Wisconsin law requires employers to pay employees all wages earned by a day  not more than 31 days prior to the date of payment. Wis. Stat. § 109.03.   97.   Plaintiff is not exempt from the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements  of Wisconsin law.   98.   During the applicable statute of limitations, Defendants failed and refused to pay  wages, including minimum and overtime wages, to the Plaintiff.   INDIVIDUAL CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF THE FLSA   INDIVIDUAL CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF WISCONSIN LAW  