50. Plaintiff  reasserts  and  re-­‐‑alleges  the  allegations  set  forth  above.    51. At   all   relevant   times   herein,   Plaintiff   and   all   other   similarly   situated   Delivery   Drivers  have  been  entitled  to  the  rights,  protections,  and  benefits  provided  under  the   FLSA,  29  U.S.C.  §§  201,  et  seq.    52. Section  13  of  the  FLSA,  29  U.S.C.  §  213,  exempts  certain  categories  of  employees   from   federal   minimum   wage   obligations,   but   none   of   the   FLSA   exemptions   apply   to   Plaintiff  or  other  similarly  situated  Delivery  Drivers.    54. Defendant  is  subject  to  the  FLSA’s  minimum  wage  requirements  because  it  is  an   enterprise   engaged   in   interstate   commerce,   and   its   employees   are   engaged   in   commerce.    55. Under  Section  6(a)  of  the  FLSA,  29  U.S.C.  §  206(a),  employees  have  been  entitled   to  be  compensated  at  a  rate  of  at  least  $7.25  per  hour  since  July  24,  2009.    Id.    56. As   alleged   herein,   Defendant   has   reimbursed   Delivery   Drivers   less   than   the   reasonably  approximate  amount  of  their  automobile  expenses  to  such  an  extent  that  it   diminishes  these  employees’  wages  beneath  the  federal  minimum  wage.      57. Defendant  knew  or  should  have  known  that  its  pay  and  reimbursement  policies,   practices   and   methodology   result   in   failure   to   compensate   Delivery   Drivers   at   the   federal  minimum  wage.    58. Defendant,  pursuant  to  its  policy  and  practice,  violated  the  FLSA  by  refusing  and   failing   to   pay   federal   minimum   wage   to   Plaintiff   and   other   similarly   situated   employees.    59. Plaintiff  and  all  similarly  situated  Delivery  Drivers  are  victims  of  a  uniform  and   employer-­‐‑based   compensation   and   reimbursement   policy.   This   uniform   policy,   in   violation  of  the  FLSA,  has  been  applied,  and  continues  to  be  applied,  to  all  Delivery   Driver  employees  in  Defendant’s  stores.    61. Defendant  has  acted  neither  in  good  faith  nor  with  reasonable  grounds  to  believe   that  its  actions  and  omissions  were  not  a  violation  of  the  FLSA,  and  as  a  result,  Plaintiff   and  other  similarly  situated  employees  are  entitled  to  recover  an  award  of  liquidated   damages  in  an  amount  equal  to  the  amount  of  unpaid  minimum  wages  under  29  U.S.C.   §  216(b).  Alternatively,  should  the  Court  find  Defendant  acted  in  good  faith  and  with   reasonable  grounds  to  believe  its  actions  were  lawful,  Plaintiff  and  all  similarly  situated   employees  are  entitled  to  an  award  of  prejudgment  interest  at  the  applicable  legal  rate.    63. At   all   relevant   times   herein,   Plaintiff   and   the   Class   have   been   entitled   to   the   rights,  protections,  and  benefits  provided  under  the  AEPWCL,  A.R.S.  §  23-­‐‑201  et  seq.        64. No  exemption  applies  to  Plaintiff  or  the  Class.        65. Arizona  law  regulates,  among  other  things,  the  payment  of  minimum  wage  by   employers  who  employ  any  person  in  Arizona.      A.R.S.  §  23-­‐‑363.        66. During   all   times   relevant   to   this   action,   Defendant   was   the   “employer”   of   Plaintiff  and  the  Class  within  the  meaning  of  Arizona  law.    A.R.S.  §  23-­‐‑362(B).    67. During  all  times  relevant  to  this  action,  Plaintiff  and  the  Class  were  Defendant’s   “employees”  within  the  meaning  of  Arizona  law.    A.R.S.  §  23-­‐‑362(A).    68. Under  A.R.S.  §  23-­‐‑363,  employees  have  been  entitled  to  be  compensated  at  a  rate   of  at  least  $7.80  per  hour  in  2013,  at  least  $7.90  per  hour  in  2014,  and  at  least  $8.05  per   hour  since  2015.    http://www.govdocs.com/arizona-­‐‑2015-­‐‑minimum-­‐‑wage-­‐‑increase/.    70. Defendant  knew  or  should  have  known  that  its  pay  and  reimbursement  policies,   practices  and  methodology  result  in  failure  to  compensate  Delivery  Drivers  at  Arizona’s   minimum  wage.    71. Defendant,  pursuant  to  its  policy  and  practice,  violated  Arizona  law  by  refusing   and   failing   to   pay   Arizona’s   minimum   wage   to   Plaintiff   and   other   similarly   situated   employees.    72. Because  Defendant  acted  willfully  and  knew,  or  showed  reckless  disregard  for,   whether   its   conduct   was   unlawful,   Plaintiff   and   all   similarly   situated   employees   are   entitled   to   damages   equal   to   the   minimum   wage   minus   actual   wages   received   after   deducting  reasonably  approximated  automobile  expenses  within  three  years  from  the   date  each  Plaintiff  joins  this  case,  plus  a  period  of  time  encompassing  all  violations  that   occurred   as   part   of   a   continuing   course   of   employer   conduct   regardless   of   the   date.     to  Reasonably  Reimburse  Vehicle  Expenses    to  Reasonably  Reimburse  Vehicle  Expenses   