 ILLINOIS WAGE AND HOUR AND   WAGE PAYMENT LAWS    OF THE FLSA CLASS    10.  At all times relevant, Just Energy was an employer, as defined by the FLSA and  the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act in that, among other things, Just Energy  controlled, directed and/or participated in the creation and maintenance of its classification  policies as well as its Wage-Hour policies and practices; was involved in decisions pertaining to  employees’ compensation; and had a material role in the compensation practices, decisions,  policies and actions, including but not limited to those complained of herein.   11.  Defendant Just Energy is a publicly traded company (Symbol JE) with more than  2 million customers in the U.S. and Canada.  Just Energy is engaged in interstate commerce as  that term is used in the FLSA.  4   12.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff and the Class, in their capacity as employees of  Defendant Just Energy, were engaged in interstate commerce.   13.   During the course of employment with Defendant Just Energy, employees  working to promote the Company, such as the Plaintiff, were not exempt from minimum wage  and/or overtime wages. However, the Plaintiff was paid commissions only after another Just  Energy employee made the sale after Plaintiff’s initial promotional work, did not receive  minimum wages for all hours worked, and did not receive overtime compensation as required by  the FLSA and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.   14.  During the course of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant Just Energy, she and  the Class routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week.   15.  Despite the fact that the Plaintiff and the Class were not exempt, Defendant did  not track the Plaintiff’s or the Class’ work hours and did not pay Plaintiff and the Class the  proper wages they were owed, including payment of minimum wage and payment of overtime  wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.     16.  Defendant never informed Plaintiff and those similarly situated that they were  required to pay for their uniforms, including a hat, windbreaker, shirt, fleece and winter coat, all  bearing the Company’s identifying logo.     17.  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to actual and liquidated damages for  Defendant’s actions.   18.  Plaintiff reasserts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in each of the paragraphs  above.  5   19.   Plaintiff seeks to maintain this suit as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C  §216(b) on behalf of herself and all other persons doing promotional work for Just Energy and  being classified as independent contractors at any time during the statutory period who give their  consent in writing to become party plaintiffs ("FLSA Class").   20.  All putative members of the class are similarly situated because, inter alia, they  have all had similar duties; performed similar tasks; been paid on a commissions basis; been  entitled under the FLSA to be paid for all hours worked and paid overtime for all work in excess  of 40 hours per week; and had such rights undermined and negated by Defendants’ unlawful  practices and policies of classifying them as independent contractors.    21.   Defendant has encouraged, permitted, and required Plaintiff and other members of  the FLSA Class to work without pay and without overtime compensation.   22.   Defendant has known that Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Class have  performed unpaid work and been deprived of overtime compensation.  Nonetheless, Defendant  has operated under a scheme to deny Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Class all  compensation for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.   23.  Defendants' conduct, as alleged herein, was willful and has caused significant  damage to Plaintiffs and other members of the FLSA Class.  24.   Plaintiff reasserts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in each of the paragraphs  above.   25.  Under the FLSA, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated (hereinafter referred to  as "The FLSA Class") were entitled to be paid minimum wages.  The FLSA Class was also  6  entitled to be paid at the overtime rate by Defendant for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours  each workweek.  Plaintiff for example, worked 7 days a week and as much as 12 hours each day.   26.  The overtime rate is computed by multiplying 1.5 times an employee’s regular  hourly rate, which includes all nondiscretionary compensation paid to employees.   27.  Defendant failed to compensate The FLSA Class per the FLSA minimum wage  requirements for the hours that they worked for Defendant.   28.  Defendant also failed to compensate The FLSA Class at the overtime rate for  work performed in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the FLSA.  29  Defendant’s violation of the FLSA for failure to pay The FLSA Class minimum  and overtime wages was willful and deliberate.   30.  Upon information and belief, Defendant’s practices as described above were not  approved in writing by the United States Department of Labor.   31.  Upon information and belief, Defendant’s practices were not based upon  Defendant’s review of any policy or publication of the United States Department of Labor.   32.  Due to Defendant’s knowing and willful violation of the FLSA, The FLSA Class  is entitled to recover from Defendant their liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and  the costs of this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  33.  Plaintiff also seeks to maintain this action as a class action, pursuant to Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23(b)(3), on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all other members of the Class  who, during the relevant statute of limitations period, have worked for Defendant and who have  been aggrieved, with respect to the claims plead in this Complaint.    7   34.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) provides that a cause of action may be maintained as a  class action if:  a) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members, whether otherwise  required or permitted, is impracticable;  b) There are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over  any questions affecting only individual members;  c) The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or  defenses to the class;  d) The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  class; and,  e) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy.  Class Definitions   35.  Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: All persons doing promotional  work for Just Energy in the state of Illinois who were classified as Independent contractors.   Numerosity   36.  Plaintiff satisfies the numerosity requirements as the proposed classes consist of  potentially hundreds of class members. The proposed classes include all persons employed by  Defendant in Illinois who did promotional work for the Company and who were not paid  minimum wages and overtime wages.  Since Defendant has numerous employees that were  injured by Defendant’s actions the class will likely include more than 75 members. The proposed  class can be identified and located using Defendant’s payroll and personnel records. Therefore,  the class is so numerous that the joinder of all members is impracticable. Class members may be  informed of the pendency of this action by direct mail based upon and/or published and  broadcast notice.  8  Common Questions of Fact or Law   37.  There are questions of fact and law common to each class that predominate over  any questions affecting only individual members. The common questions of law and fact arising  from Defendants' actions include, without limitation, the following:  a) Whether the class members have been misclassified as independent contractors;  b) Whether class members share similar job duties;  c) Whether Defendants paid class members for all hours worked;  d) Whether Defendants paid Class members overtime;   e)   Whether Plaintiff and the Class regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per  week;  f) Whether Defendants' practices violated the overtime and minimum wage  provisions of the Illinois Wage and Hour Laws; and  g) Whether Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime has been  willful.   38.  The questions set forth above predominate over any questions affecting only  individual persons and a class action is superior with respect to consideration of consistency,  economy, efficiency, fairness and equity, to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy.  Typicality   39.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of Class.  Plaintiff  suffered similar injuries as those suffered by other members of the Class she seeks to represent as  a result of Defendant’s illegal activities as described herein.   Adequacy   40.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class she seeks to represent because  she is a member of the class, and her interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of  9  the class she seeks to represent.  The interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately  protected by the Plaintiff and her designated counsel.  Plaintiff has hired competent attorneys  who are experienced in class-action litigation of this type and who are committed to prosecuting  this action.  Superiority   41.  A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy because individual joinder of the parties is impracticable. Class- action treatment will allow a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their  common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently and without the unnecessary  duplication of effort and expense if these claims were brought individually.  Moreover, as the  damages suffered by each class member may be relatively small, the expense and burden of  individual litigation would make it difficult to bring individual claims.  The presentation of  separate actions by individual class members could create a risk of inconsistent and varying  adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and/or substantially  impair, or impede the ability of class members to protect their interests.  42.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in each of the paragraphs  above.   43.   The members of the Class were entitled to minimum wages for the work they  performed for Defendant Just Energy.   44.  Defendant failed to pay the members of the Class such owed minimum wages, in  violation of Illinois’ Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq.     10   45.   Illinois’ Wage Payment and Collection Act § 820 ILCS 115/2,  defines an  employer as “any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or any person  or group  of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an  employee, for which one or more persons is gainfully employed.” As such, Defendant Just  Energy meets the definition of an employer pursuant to Illinois’ Wage Payment and Collection  Act.   46.  By the above-alleged conduct, Defendant failed to pay the members of the Class  compensation, including minimum wages, as required by the Illinois law.   47.  The members of Class were not exempt from the payment of these wages  pursuant to Illinois wage hour laws.   48.  Defendant acted willfully in violating Illinois Law and the members of the Class  were damaged by Defendant’s wrongful conduct as alleged herein.   49.  Plaintiff reasserts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in each of the paragraphs  above.   50.  The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act provides that unless exempt, an  employee must be paid  by an employer overtime wages equal to 1.5 times the employee's  regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.  Plaintiff and the Class were  not exempt.   51.   Illinois’ Wage Payment and Collection Act § 820 ILCS 115/2 defines an  employer as “any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or any person  or group  of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an  11  employee, for which one or more persons is gainfully employed.” As such, Defendant Just  Energy meets the definition of an employer pursuant to Illinois’ Wage Payment and Collection  Act.   52.  By the above-alleged conduct, Defendant failed to pay the members of Class  compensation, including overtime compensation, as required by the Illinois law.   53.  The members of Class were not exempt from the payment of these wages  pursuant to Illinois wage hour laws.   54.  Defendant acted willfully in violating Illinois Law and the members of Class were  damaged by Defendants’ wrongful conduct as alleged herein.   8.  This lawsuit arises out of Defendant’s practice of misclassifying Plaintiff and  other similarly situated employees as independent contractors.  Plaintiff and the Class are  employees: the Defendant tells them when to report to work, where they will be working and for  how long they will work on any given day.  Defendant also directs the work of the Plaintiff and  others by giving them very precise and specific instructions on how Plaintiff and the Class must  represent the Company and its products and services.  The Company also requires that Plaintiff  and others wear uniforms identifying them as representatives of Just Energy.  Defendant is liable  to Plaintiff and the Class for knowingly and willfully refusing to pay them minimum wages for  all hours worked, and for denying them overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of forty  hours each workweek.    9.  At all times relevant, the Plaintiff and the Class were non-exempt employees of  Defendant Just Energy, as defined by the FLSA and Illinois State Wage-Hour laws.    FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME WAGES UNDER THE FLSA   VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS WAGE HOUR LAWS   FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES    VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS WAGE HOUR LAWS   FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES   