24.  Defendants employ exotic dancers and have employed hundreds of dancers over  the years at The Club.   25.  Plaintiff Smith was previously employed as an exotic dancer at Defendants’ adult  entertainment club during the statutory time period.   26.  Plaintiff Smith worked on a regular basis for Defendants’ establishment located in  Waterbury, Connecticut.   27.  Plaintiff Smith worked at the Club from January 2017 until March 2019.   28.  Plaintiff Smith worked between 7-8 hours per shift during her employment.    29.  Plaintiff Smith never received any wages during her employment with The Club.   30.  During at least one workweek between January 2017 and March 2019, Defendants  did not pay Plaintiff Smith the federally mandated minimum wage. As an illustrative example,  starting in the first week of January 2017 that she worked for Defendants as a dancer, and  continuing until the end of her employment with The Club, Plaintiff Smith was not paid a minimum  wage.   31.  Plaintiff Baker was previously employed as an exotic dancer at Defendants’ adult  entertainment club during the statutory time period.   32.  Plaintiff Baker worked on a regular basis for Defendants’ establishment located in  Waterbury, Connecticut.   33.  Plaintiff Baker worked at the Club from February 2017 until 2019.   34.  Plaintiff Baker worked between 7-8 hours per shift during her employment.    35.  Plaintiff Baker never received any wages during her employment with The Club.   37.  Similarly, Opt-In Plaintiffs and Connecticut Class Members did not work a single  hour at the club where they were paid the federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25 an hour or  the state mandated minimum wage of $10.10 under Connecticut Public Act No. 14-1 effective  January 1, 2017. The previous minimum wage in Connecticut in 2016 was $9.60, and the minimum  wage after October 1, 2019 became $11.00 per hour.   38.  Plaintiffs, FLSA Class Members, and Connecticut Class Members were  compensated exclusively through tips from Defendants’ customers.  That is, Defendants did not  pay them whatsoever for any hours worked at its establishment.     39.  Furthermore, Defendants charged Plaintiffs, FLSA Class Members a house fee per  shift worked. In other words, they had to pay to work at The Club and sometimes completed a full  shift only to owe The Club money.    40.  Defendants also required Plaintiffs, FLSA Class Members, and Connecticut Class  Members to share their tips with other non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips  such as security.     41.  Plaintiffs, FLSA Class Members, and Connecticut Class Members received tips  and/or dance fees from Defendants’ customers but no other form of payment from their employer.   42.  The money received by the club after a shift of dance performances was not  included in Defendants’ gross sales receipts and was not disbursed in any way as wages to any  workers.   44.  Defendants hired/fired, issued pay, supervised, directed, disciplined, and performed  all other duties generally associated with that of an employer with regard to the dancers.   46.  Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs, FLSA Class Members, and Connecticut Class  Members as independent contractors to avoid Defendants’ obligation to pay them pursuant to the  FLSA and State law.     47.  Plaintiffs, FLSA Class Members, and Connecticut Class Members constituted the  workforce without which Defendants could not perform their services.   48.  Plaintiffs, FLSA Class Members, and Connecticut Class members are not exempt  from the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the FLSA and Connecticut state labor  laws.   49.  Defendants’ method of paying Plaintiffs and Class Members in violation of the  FLSA is willful and is not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that its conduct complied  with the FLSA or State Labor Laws.     51.  Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.   52.  Defendants’ willful practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members  at the required minimum wage rate violates the FLSA and was not based in good faith. 29 U.S.C.  § 206.     53.  The FLSA required that Defendants allow Plaintiffs and other similarly situated  exotic dancers to keep all tips and gratuities received from customers. As set forth above,  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated exotic dancers at hourly rates in  compliance with the FLSA Federal Minimum Wage requirements. Without legal excuse or  justification, Defendants kept and/or assigned to management tips and gratuities received by  Plaintiffs and other exotic dancers and belonging to Plaintiffs and other exotic dancers.   54.  As also alleged above, Defendants’ practice of collecting house fees from the  dancers also violates the law.    55.  None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA regulating the duty of employers to  pay employees for all hours worked at the required minimum wage rate or the required overtime  rate are applicable to the Defendants or the Plaintiffs.  56.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of the Connecticut Class  incorporate by reference the paragraphs above.   58.  Pursuant to Connecticut General Statues Section 31-58(i), Connecticut’s minimum  wage was $10.10 during the period from January 1, 2017 to October 1, 2019. Prior to this period,  the minimum wage was $9.60, and the minimum wage became $11.00 after this period.    59.  At relevant times in the period encompassed by this Complaint, Defendants have a  willful policy and practice of improperly classifying Plaintiffs and dancers as independent  contractors and, consequently, failing to pay these individuals the applicable Connecticut  Minimum Wage for each hour worked.    60.  Pursuant to Defendants’ compensation policies, Defendants improperly classified  Dancers as independent contractors rather than pay Plaintiffs and dancers the Connecticut  minimum wage.    61.  As a result of Defendants’ willful practices, Defendants were not entitled to pay  Plaintiffs and the members of the Connecticut Class less than the Connecticut minimum wage for  all hours worked.    62.  Defendants have violated and continue to violate the CMWA and Conn. Gen. Stat.  §§ 31-60 et seq.   63.   Due to the Defendants’ violations, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the  members of the Connecticut Class, are entitled to recover from Defendants the amount of unpaid  minimum wages, attorney’s fees, and costs.   65.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding  paragraphs.   66.  This count arises from Defendants’ violation of the FLSA for its failure to pay  Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members overtime based on the FLSA’s time and a half formula.   67.  For each hour worked in excess of 40 each week, Plaintiffs and FLSA Class  Members were entitled to be paid one and one-half times their regular rates of pay.  29 U.S.C. §  207.   68.  By failing to pay overtime based on that formula, Defendants have violated and  continue to violate the FLSA.   69.  No exemption contained in the FLSA, its implementing regulations, or recognized  by any court of the United States permits an employer in Defendants’ position to skirt its obligation  to pay overtime to an employee situated in the position of the Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members.   70.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime to Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members, in  violation of the FLSA was willful and not based on a good faith belief that their conduct did not  violate the FLSA.     71.  As such, the foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation within the  meaning of the FLSA.  29 U.S.C. § 255(a).  73.  It would be inequitable and unjust for Defendants to continue to retain the benefit,  as Plaintiffs conferred a benefit on Defendants which Defendants kept for themselves.  74.  Plaintiffs bring this action as an FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) on behalf of all persons who were or are employed by Defendants as exotic dancers at any  time during the three years prior to the commencement of this action to present.    75.  Plaintiffs have actual knowledge that FLSA Class Members have also been denied  pay at the federally mandated minimum wage rate. That is, Plaintiffs worked with other dancers  who worked at The Club. As such, Plaintiffs have first-hand personal knowledge of the same pay  violations at The Club for other dancers. Furthermore, other exotic dancers at Defendants’  establishment have shared with Plaintiffs similar pay violation experiences including wage and tip  confiscations, as those described in this complaint.    76.  Other employees similarly situated to the Plaintiffs work or have worked for  Defendants’ gentlemen’s club business but were not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half  their regular rate when those hours exceeded 40 hours per workweek.  Furthermore, these same  employees were denied pay at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.     77.  FLSA Class Members perform or have performed the same or similar work as  Plaintiffs.   79.  As such, FLSA Class Members are similar to Plaintiffs in terms of job duties, pay  structure, misclassification as independent contractors and/or the denial of minimum wage.   80.  Defendants’ failure to pay for hours worked at the minimum wage rate required by  the FLSA results from generally applicable policies or practices and does not depend on the  personal circumstances of the FLSA Class Members.   81.  The experiences of Plaintiffs, with respect to their pay, are typical of the  experiences of the FLSA Class Members.   82.  The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each FLSA Class Member  does not prevent collective treatment.   83.  All FLSA Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are  entitled to compensation for hours worked at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.    84.  Although the exact amount of damages may vary among FLSA Class Members,  the damages for the FLSA Class Members can be easily calculated by a simple formula.  The  claims of all FLSA Class Members arise from a common nucleus of facts.  Liability is based on a  systematic course of wrongful conduct by the Defendants that caused harm to all FLSA Class  Members.    85.  As such, Plaintiffs bring their FLSA minimum wage claims as a collective action  on behalf of the following class:   The FLSA Class Members are all of Defendants’ current and  former exotic dancers who worked for Defendants at any time  starting three years before this lawsuit was filed up to the  present.  B.   Connecticut Rule 23 Class Action   87.  Defendants willfully violated Connecticut General Statute § 31-58 and refused to  pay dancers minimum wages and other owed wages (such as wages confiscated via forced tip outs  and house fees.)   88.  Plaintiffs brings their Connecticut wage claims as a Rule 23 class action on behalf  of the following class:  All of Defendants’ current and former exotic dancers who worked for  Defendants at any time starting two years before this lawsuit was filed  up to the present.   89.  Numerosity.  The number of members in the Connecticut Class is believed to be  well over 40. This volume makes bringing the claims of each individual member of the class before  this Court impracticable.  Likewise, joining each individual member of the Connecticut Class as a  plaintiff in this action is impracticable.  Furthermore, the identity of the members of the  Connecticut Class may be determined from Defendants’ employment files, as will the  compensation paid to each of them. As such, a class action is a reasonable and practical means of  resolving these claims. To require individual actions would prejudice the Connecticut Class and  Defendants.   91.  Adequacy.  Plaintiffs are a representative party who will fairly and adequately  protect the interests of the Connecticut Class because it is in their interest to effectively prosecute  the claims herein alleged in order to obtain the unpaid wages and penalties required under  Connecticut law.  Plaintiffs have retained attorneys who are competent in both class actions and  wage and hour litigation.  Plaintiffs do not have any interest which may be contrary to or in conflict  with the claims of the Connecticut Class they seek to represent.   92.  Commonality.  Common issues of fact and law predominate over any individual  questions in this matter.  The common issues of fact include, but are not limited to:   A.  Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and Connecticut Class the  minimum wage for all hours worked;  B.  Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and Connecticut Class an  overtime rate for all hours worked;  C.  Whether Defendants took wages and tips from dancers to run their business  in violation of Connecticut Wage Laws.   94.  Superiority.  A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this lawsuit.  Even in the event any member of the Connecticut Class  could afford to pursue individual litigation against a company the size of Defendants, doing so  would unduly burden the court system. Individual litigation would magnify the delay and expense  to all parties and flood the court system with duplicative lawsuits. Prosecution of separate actions  by individual members of the Connecticut Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying  judicial results and establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.    95.  A class action, by contrast, presents far fewer management difficulties and affords  the benefits of uniform adjudication of the claims, financial economy for the parties, and  comprehensive supervision by a single court.  By concentrating this litigation in one forum,  judicial economy and parity among the claims of individual Connecticut Class Members are  promoted. Additionally, class treatment in this matter will provide for judicial consistency. The  identity of members of the Connecticut Class is readily identifiable from Defendants’ records.   96.  This type of case is well-suited for class action treatment because: (1) Defendants’  practices, policies, and/or procedures were uniform; (2) the burden is on the Defendants to prove  it properly compensated its employees; and (3) the burden is on the Defendants to accurately record  hours worked by employees.   97.  Ultimately, a class action is a superior forum to resolve the Connecticut claims  detailed herein because of the common nucleus of operative facts centered on the continued failure  of Defendants to pay Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Class according to applicable Connecticut  laws.   A.  FLSA Class Members   TIP SHARING – COLLECTIVE ACTION)   TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME (CLASS ACTION)  