18.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if  fully set forth herein.   19.  Plaintiff, those similarly situated, and the members of the putative FLSA  Collective and Minnesota Rule 23 Class are or were employed by Defendant as hourly or  non-salaried health care workers to provide companionship and related health care  services for the elderly, ill or disabled in nursing homes.     20.  Defendant has suffered and permitted Plaintiff to regularly work more than  forty (40) and/or forty eight (48) hours in certain workweeks.   Upon information and  belief, Defendant has also suffered and permitted the members of the putative FLSA  Collective, and members of the putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class to regularly work more  than forty (40) and/or forty eight (48) hours in certain workweeks.    21.  Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not compensated in accordance  with the FLSA and/or the MFLSA because they were not paid proper overtime wages for  all hours worked in excess of forty (40) and/or forty eight (48) hours per workweek.   Specifically, rather than paying them 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours  worked over forty (40) in a workweek, which is required by the FLSA (29 U.S.C. § 207),  and/or over forty eight (48) in a workweek, which is required by the MFLSA (Minn. Stat.  § 177.25), Defendant paid them “straight time” for their overtime hours worked.   6   22.  Defendant is aware, or should have been aware, that Plaintiff, the putative  FLSA Collective, and members of the putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class perform work  that requires them to work overtime.  Defendant assigns Plaintiff’s work schedule and  requires Plaintiff, those similarly situated, and members of the putative Minnesota Rule  23 Class to report their work hours via weekly timesheets, which routinely reflect  overtime hours.    23.  During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s hours varied from week  to week.  For example, in 2014 until approximately January 2017, Plaintiff typically  worked for Defendant approximately sixty (60) (or more) hours per week.  24.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the  preceding paragraphs.   25.  Plaintiff brings Count I individually and on behalf of all similarly situated  individuals.  As mentioned above, the putative FLSA Collective is defined as follows:  All current or former hourly or non-salaried health care workers employed  by Defendant at any time from three years prior to the filing of this  Complaint (the “FLSA Collective”).   26.  Pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, employers are generally required to  pay overtime compensation at an hourly rate of 1.5 times an employee’s regular rate of  pay for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.  7   27.  Defendant has violated, and is violating, the provisions of the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. §§ 207 and 215(a)(2), by not paying hourly or non-salaried health care workers,  like Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective, overtime as required by law.   28.  Defendant is aware that it is not and was not compensating Plaintiff, the  putative FLSA Collective, and the members of the putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class  properly for overtime, because, for example, CNAs complained to Defendant about not  receiving 1.5 times their regular rate for overtime hours worked.   29.  Defendant knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard of the law,  maintained an illegal practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective  proper overtime compensation for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.  30.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if  fully set forth herein.     31.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b), Plaintiff brings Counts II of  this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals.  As mentioned  above, the putative  Minnesota Rule 23 Class is defined as follows:   All current and former hourly or non-salaried health care workers  employed by Defendant at any time from three years prior to the filing of  this Complaint (the “Minnesota Rule 23 Class”).   32.  The persons in the Minnesota Rule 23 Class are so numerous that joinder of  all members of the proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class is impracticable.  While the  precise number of class members has not been determined at this time, Defendant, on  8  information and belief, has employed hundreds of individuals as hourly or non-salaried  health care workers during the applicable statute of limitations period.  Plaintiff and the  putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class have been equally affected by Defendant’s violations  of law.   33.  There are questions of law and fact common to the putative Minnesota Rule  23 Class that predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the  putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class, including but not limited to the following:  a. Whether Defendant violated Minnesota law for failure to pay  overtime wages due and owing;  b. The proper measure and calculation of damages; and  c. Whether Defendant’s actions were willful or in good faith.    34.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those members of the putative Minnesota  Rule 23 Class.  Plaintiff, like other members of the putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class,  was subject to Defendant’s practices and policies described in this Complaint.  Further,  Plaintiff’s job duties are typical of the putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class, as all class  members are or were hourly or non-salaried health care workers working in nursing  homes.   35.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the putative  Minnesota Rule 23 Class, and has retained counsel experienced in complex wage and  hour class and collective action litigation.   36.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting  individual class members, and a class action is superior to other methods in order to  9  ensure a fair an efficient adjudication of this controversy because, in the context of wage  and hour litigation, individual plaintiffs lack the financial resources to vigorously  prosecute separate lawsuits in federal court against large corporate defendants.  Class  litigation is also superior because it will preclude the need for unduly duplicative  litigation resulting in inconsistent judgments pertaining to Defendant’s policies and  practices.  There do not appear to be any difficulties in managing this class action.   37.  Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the putative Minnesota  Rule 23 Class to the extent required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.     IX.  38.  Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of the FLSA Collective, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding paragraphs.   39.  The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, requires employers to pay non-exempt  employees 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) hours per  workweek.     40.  Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the putative FLSA  Collective to routinely work more than forty (40) hours in a workweek without proper  overtime compensation as required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and its  implementing regulations.  10   41.  Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for the fact, that it failed to  pay these individuals proper overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA.     42.  Defendant’s failure to comply with the FLSA overtime protections caused  Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon.   43.  Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective are entitled to unpaid overtime,  liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.  44.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the putative Minnesota Rule 23  Class, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   45.  Plaintiff and the putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class were or are employees  of Defendant within the meaning of the MFLSA, Minn. Stat. §§ 177.23 and 177.24.   46.  Defendant was or is the employer of Plaintiff and the putative Minnesota  Rule 23 Class within the meaning of the MFLSA, Minn. Stat. §§ 177.23 and 177.24.   47.  The MFLSA requires employers to pay their employees for hours worked  in excess of forty eight (48) in an individual work week at a rate no less than one and  one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay.   48.  When Defendant paid Plaintiff and the putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class  straight time, rather than the required one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for  hours worked over forty eight (48) in a workweek, it violated the MFLSA.   11   49.  The foregoing conduct constitutes a willful violation of the MFLSA within  the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 541.07.   50.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff  and the putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class have suffered damages in an amount to be  determined at trial.   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.   On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective against Defendant   VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – Minn. Stat. § 177.21, et seq.  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Putative Minnesota Rule 23 Class against Defendant   