(Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act)   10.  Defendant has been the “employer” of Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly-paid  employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C, § 203(d) and § 203(r) at all times  material to this action.   11.  At all times material to this action, Plaintiff and those similarly situated have been  Defendant’s “employees” as defined by Section 203(e)(1) of the FLSA, and worked  for Defendant within the territory of the United States within three (3) years  preceding the filing of this collective action.   12.  At all times material to this action, Defendant has been an enterprise engaged in  commerce and production of goods for commerce as defined by Section 203(s)(1)  of the FLSA.   13.  Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly-paid employees also have engaged in  commerce during the applicable statutory period.   14.  At all times material to this action, Defendant has been an enterprise engaged in  4  commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined by Section 203  (s)(1) of the FLSA, with annual revenues in excess of $500,000.00.   15.  Defendant has been responsible for the implementation and administration of its  pay practices, including the decision not to pay Plaintiff and those similarly  situated one-and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for all hours over  forty (40) within weekly pay periods during all times material to this action.    16.  Defendant has had a time keeping system in which Plaintiff and those similarly  situated were required to “clock-in” and “clock-out” for the purpose of recording  their compensable time during the three (3) year period preceding the filing of this  Complaint.   17.  Plaintiff and those similarly situated have been subject to Defendant’s    aforementioned timekeeping and compensation plans, policies, and practice  during all times relevant to this action.   18.  Defendant has had a common policy, plan, and practice of not paying the FLSA  mandated rate of overtime pay for all hours worked over forty (40) per week.   Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated one-and one-half  times their regular hourly rates of pay for all overtime hours within weekly pay  periods during all times material to this collective action.   19.  Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly-paid employees have not received one and  one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for all hours worked over forty (40)  within weekly pay periods during the three (3) year period preceding the filing of  this collective action.   5   20.  Specifically, Defendant’s policy and practice was to only pay Plaintiff and other  hourly-paid employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of  forty (40) on “weekday” shifts (Monday through Friday). When Plaintiff and  putative class members worked on a Saturday or Sunday, they were paid ten (10)  dollars per hour, regardless of their base rate of pay or hours already worked.    21.  Plaintiff and putative class members regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours  each Monday through Friday.    22.  Plaintiff and putative class members also routinely worked on Saturdays and/or  Sundays. When they did, they were only compensated at a rate of ten (10) dollars  per hour, despite all the “weekend” hours worked being in excess of forty (40) in  a given workweek.     23.  Plaintiff and those similarly situated have complained to Defendant that they were  not receiving one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for all hours  worked over forty (40) within weekly pay periods during all times material to this  lawsuit.    24.  Defendant was aware Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly-paid employees were  not receiving one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for all hours  worked over forty (40) within weekly pay periods during the three-year period  preceding the filing of this action as it was Defendant’s policy to only pay them a  “straight time” rate of pay for “weekend” hours worked in excess  forty (40) per  week within weekly pay periods.    25.  The aforementioned unpaid overtime claims of Plaintiff and those similarly  6  situated are unified by a common theory of Defendant’s FLSA violations.    26.   Defendant willfully and, with reckless disregard to the FLSA’s overtime  compensation requirements, failed to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated  hourly-paid employees at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay  for all hour worked over forty (40) within weekly pay periods during all times  material to this Complaint.    27.  Defendant knew it was not compensating Plaintiff and those similarly situated at  one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for all hours worked over  forty (40) within weekly pay periods during all times material to this Complaint,  without a good faith basis for its failure.   28.  Defendant’s common policies and practices of not compensating Plaintiff those  similarly situated for all their compensable overtime hours at the applicable FLSA    overtime rates of pay violated 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   29.  As a result of Defendant’s lack of good faith and willful failure to pay Plaintiff and  those similarly situated in compliance with the overtime requirements of the  FLSA, Plaintiff and class members have suffered lost wages in terms of lost  overtime compensation as well as other damages.   30.  The net effect of Defendant’s common plan, policy, and practice of failing to pay  Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly-paid employees one-and one-half times  their regular hourly rates of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) within weekly  pay periods, during all times material to this collective action, is that it unjustly  enriched itself and enjoyed ill-gained profits at the expense of Plaintiff and class  7  members.  V.  31.  Plaintiff brings this case as a collective action on behalf of himself and other  similarly situated individuals pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to recover unpaid  overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees  and costs, and other damages owed.   32.  The proposed collective class of similarly situated persons is defined as:  All current and former hourly-paid individuals employed by Defendant   who were not paid one and-one half times their regular hourly rates of pay  for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hour per week, occurring  anywhere in the United States within weekly pay periods during the three  (3) years preceding the filing of this action (“Class Members”). 1   33.  Plaintiff seeks to pursue his unpaid overtime wage claims against Defendant on  behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly  situated hourly-paid employees as a class.   34.  Plaintiff and class members are “similarly situated” for purposes of 29 U.S.C.  §216(b) because, inter alia, Defendant employed a common pay system that  resulted in a failure to pay Plaintiff and class members for all hours worked over  forty (40) per week at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay, as  required by the FLSA.   35.  This action is properly maintained as a collective action because Plaintiff is  similarly situated to the members of the collective class with respect to  1 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class Description upon the discovery of  additional facts.  8  Defendant’s pay and compensation policies and practices.    36.  The collective action mechanism is superior to other available methods for a fair  and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Defendant has acted or refused to  act on grounds generally applicable to class members. The prosecution of separate  actions could create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, place a  substantial and unnecessary burden on the courts and/or substantially impair the  ability of class members to protect their interests.   37.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as his interests  are in complete alignment with those of class members, i.e. to pursue their  aforementioned unpaid overtime compensation claims.    38.  Counsel for Plaintiff will adequately protect his interests as well as the interests of  all putative class members.   39.  Defendant knew Plaintiff and class members performed work in excess of forty  (40) hours per week within weekly pay periods that required overtime  compensation to be paid. Nonetheless, they operated under a common policy and  practice to deprive Plaintiff and class members of such overtime compensation.    40.  Defendant’s conduct, as alleged herein, was willful and has caused significant  damage to Plaintiff and the collective class.   41.  Defendant did not have a good faith basis for its failure to compensate Plaintiff  and class members for all their compensable overtime hours at the FLSA  applicable overtime rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all times  material to this action.  9   42.  Therefore, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and class members under the FLSA for  failing to properly compensate them for their aforementioned unpaid overtime  hours within weekly pay periods during all times material.   43.  Plaintiff requests this Court to authorize notice to the members of the collective  class to inform them of the pendency of this action and their right to “opt-in” to  this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of seeking unpaid   overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, under the FLSA, and the  other relief requested herein.   44.  Plaintiff estimates there are more than two hundred (200) members in the  collective class. The precise number of collective class members can be easily  ascertained by examining Defendant’s payroll, scheduling, timekeeping,  personnel and other work-related records and documents. Given the composition  and size of the class, members of the collective class may be informed of the  pendency of this action directly via U.S. mail, e-mail, and by posting notice at  Defendant’s work place.   45.  Plaintiff and class members’ unpaid overtime compensation claims may be  determined partially by an examination of Defendant’s payroll, scheduling, time  keeping, personnel and other such work-related records and documents.  46.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as fully as if written  herein.  10   47.  At all relative times, Plaintiff and class members have been entitled to the rights,  protections, and benefits provided under 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.   48.   Defendant has been an “employer” engaged in interstate commerce consistent  with 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) and 207(a). Plaintiff and class members also have engaged  in interstate commerce during all times material to this action.   49.  Defendant employed Plaintiff and each of the class members under the coverage    of the FLSA, during all times relevant to this complaint.   50.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and class members were “employees” of Defendant    within the meaning of the FLSA’s overtime wage requirements.   51.  Plaintiff and other class members have been similarly situated individuals within  the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) at all relevant times, as previously  described.   52.  Defendant’s common policy and practice of working Plaintiff and class members  over forty (40) hours per week within weekly pay periods without compensating  them for all such overtime hours at one and one-half times their regular rates of  pay during such weeks violated the FLSA.   53.  Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA states that an employee must be paid overtime, equal  to at least one and one-half (1.5) times the employee's regular rate of pay, for all  hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §  778.315, compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week  may not be considered paid to an employee unless that employee is compensated  for all such overtime hours worked.  11   54.  Through its actions, policies, practices, and plans, Defendant violated the FLSA by  regularly and repeatedly failing to compensate Plaintiff and class members for all  hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week at one and-one half times their  regular hourly rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material to  this Complaint, as required by the FLSA.   55.  Defendant’s actions were willful with reckless disregard to clearly applicable  FLSA provisions.    56.  Defendant’s actions were not in good faith.   57.  The unpaid overtime claims of Plaintiff and the class are unified by a common  theory of Defendant’s FLSA violations.   58.  As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and  similarly situated employees have suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of  income and other damages.  Therefore, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and other members of the class for actual  damages, liquidated damages and equitable relief, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),  as well as reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.  6.  Defendant Knoxville Pallet Recyclers, Inc. is located in Knoxville, Tennessee and  buys, builds, rebuilds and sells pallets to customers in the region.      7.  Plaintiff Steven Lumpkin and those similarly situated were employed by  3  Defendant as hourly-paid employees during the three (3) year period preceding  the filing of this action.     8.  Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees performed various tasks for Defendant  such as, but not limited to, cutting boards for builders to build pallets, removing  nails out of boards that are later used to build pallets, and operating the “trim  saw.”  Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees did not build pallets.    9.  Plaintiff and those similarly situated typically worked forty (40) or more hours per  week for Defendant during all times material to this action.  