24.  From approximately the years 2012 to 2016, Plaintiff was employed by  Defendant.   25.  In approximately August 2017, Defendant re-hired Plaintiff as a Food & Nutrition  Aid working in Defendant’s Food & Nutrition Department.   26.  Plaintiff is still currently employment with Defendant.   27.  During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant from approximately August 2017  to the present date, Plaintiff reported directly to James Feil, Food Service Director.   28.  During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was an hourly-paid, non- exempt employee for purposes of the FLSA and WWPCL.   30.  During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid,  non-exempt employees performed compensable work for Defendant, on Defendant’s behalf, at  Defendant’s direction, and/or with Defendant’s knowledge.   31.  On a daily basis within the three (3) years immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff’s normal and customary hours of work were 11:00 a.m. to 7:30  p.m.   32.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees frequently  worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.    33.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant compensated Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt  employees bi-weekly via check.   34.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant maintained employment records and other documentation  regarding Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees.   35.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant maintained a centralized system for tracking and/or recording  hours worked by Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees.   37.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s “Standard Operating Policies and Procedures” applied to  Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees.   38.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s compensation policies and practices applied to Plaintiff and  all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees.   39.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s “Differentials” policy, “HR-033-13,” applied to Plaintiff  and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees.   40.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s “Differentials” policy, “HR-033-13,” stated, in part: First  Shift was 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; Second Shift was 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.; and Third Shift was  11:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.   41.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s “Differentials” policy, “HR-033-13,” stated, in part:  “Employees whose work schedule overlaps second shift will receive second shift differential for  all hours worked from 11:00 am to shift end if the employee worked a minimum of 4 hours in  second shift (3:00 – 11:00 pm). If employees do not work a minimum of 4 hours during second  shift (3:00 – 11:00 pm), no shift differential is paid.”   43.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s “Differentials” policy, “HR-033-13,” stated, in part, that  the monetary “Shift Differentials” ranged from $1.25 per hour worked to $4.00 per hours  worked.   44.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s policies in practice failed to compensate Plaintiff and all  other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for any and all hours worked and worked performed  each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a  workweek, by failing to compensate said employees with agree-upon monetary “Shift  Differentials” for working a minimum of four (4) hours in second shift and/or third shift, in  violation of the FLSA and WWPCL..   45.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s policies in practice failed to include all forms of non- discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or  other rewards, in Plaintiff’s and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees’ regular rates of  pay for overtime purposes in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL.   47.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s policies in practice unlawfully and impermissibly failed to  compensate Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours actually  worked each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay.   48.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1) and during weeks when no overtime was due, Defendant suffered or  permitted Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees to work without being paid  appropriate, lawful, and agreed-upon compensation for all hours worked.    49.  Defendant was or should have been aware that its policies in practice did not  properly and lawfully compensate Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for  all hours actually worked each work day and each workweek, including at an overtime rate of  pay.  51.  Defendant, as a matter of policy and practice, suffered or permitted Plaintiff and  the FLSA Collective (Shift Differential) to perform work during the workweek without proper  compensation for all hours of work. The effect of such a practice was for Defendant to deny the  FLSA Collective (Shift Differential) overtime compensation at one and one-half times the  regular rate of pay for the hours worked (that were not counted as work) in excess of forty (40)  in a workweek.   52.  Defendant, as a matter of policy and practice, failed to include all forms of non- discretionary compensation in Plaintiff’s and the FLSA Collective’s (Non-Discretionary  Compensation) regular rates of pay for overtime calculation and compensation purposes.   53.  The First and Second Claims for Relief is brought under and maintained as an  opt-in Collective Actions pursuant to § 216(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b), by Plaintiff on  behalf of the FLSA Collectives.     55.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collectives are and have been similarly situated, have and  have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been  subject to Defendant’s decisions, policies, plans and programs, practices, procedures, protocols,  routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to compensate them for each hour worked  including overtime compensation. The claims of Plaintiff stated herein are the same as those of  the FLSA Collectives.   56.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collectives seek relief on a collective basis challenging,  among other FLSA violations, Defendant’s practice of failing to: (1) properly and lawfully  compensate employees for all hours worked, including Defendant’s failure to compensate said  the FLSA Collective (Shift Differential) with monetary “Shift Differentials” for working a  minimum of four (4) hours in second shift and/or third shift; and (2) include all forms of non- discretionary compensation in the FLSA Collective’s (Non-Discretionary Compensation) regular  rates of pay for overtime calculation and compensation purposes.   57.  The FLSA Collectives are readily ascertainable. For purpose of notice and other  purposes related to this action, the names, phone numbers, and addresses are readily available  from Defendant. Notice can be provided to the FLSA Collectives via first class mail to the last  address known by Defendant and through posting at Defendant’s facility in areas where postings  are normally made.   59.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated  employees pursuant to the WWPCL, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  The similarly situated employees  include:   WWPCL Class (Shift Differential): All hourly-paid, non-exempt  employees employed by Defendant within the two (2) year period  immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint (ECF No. 1)  who have not been compensated for all hours worked in a  workweek – either at a regular rate of pay and/or at an overtime  rate of pay for those hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in  a workweek – as a result of Defendant’s failure to compensate said  employees with monetary “Shift Differentials” for working a  minimum of four (4) hours in second shift and/or third shift.  WWPCL Class (Non-Discretionary Compensation): All hourly- paid, non-exempt employees employed by Defendant within the  two (2) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1) who have not been compensated for all  hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek at the  proper, correct, and/or lawful overtime rate of pay as a result of  Defendant’s failure to include all forms of non-discretionary  compensation in said employees’ regular rates of pay for overtime  calculation purposes.   60.  The members of the Wisconsin Classes are readily ascertainable. The number and  identity of the members of the Wisconsin Classes are determinable from the records of  Defendant. The job titles, length of employment, and the rates of pay for each member of the  Wisconsin Classes are also determinable from Defendant’s records. For purposes of notice and  other purposes related to this action, their names and addresses are readily available from  Defendant. Notice can be provided by means permissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.   62.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those claims which could be alleged by any  members of the Wisconsin Classes, and the relief sought is typical of the relief which would be  sought by each member of the Wisconsin Classes in separate actions. All of the members of the  Wisconsin Classes were subject to the same corporate practices of Defendant, as alleged herein.  Defendant’s corporate-wide policies and practices affected all members of the Wisconsin Classes  similarly, and Defendant benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts as to each  member of the Wisconsin Classes. Plaintiff and other members of the Wisconsin Classes  sustained similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices  and procedures.   63.  Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Wisconsin  Classes and has no interests antagonistic to the Wisconsin Classes. Plaintiff is represented by  counsel who are experienced and competent in both collective/class action litigation and  employment litigation and have previously represented plaintiffs in wage and hour cases.   65.  Important public interests will be served by addressing the matter as a class  action. The adjudication of individual litigation claims would result in a great expenditure of  Court and public resources; however, treating the claims as a class action would result in a  significant saving of these costs. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of  the Wisconsin Classes would create a risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications with  respect to the individual members of the Wisconsin Classes, establishing incompatible standards  of conduct for Defendant and resulting in the impairment of class members’ rights and the  disposition of their interests through actions to which they were not parties. The issues in this  action can be decided by means of common, class-wide proof. In addition, if appropriate, the  Court can, and is empowered to, fashion methods to efficiently manage this action as a class  action.   66.  Defendant has violated the WWPCL regarding payment of regular wages and  overtime premium wages. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of  direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing claims because doing so  can harm their employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure employment. Class  actions provide class members who are not named in the Complaint a degree of anonymity  which allows for the vindication of their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.   68.  The questions set forth above predominate over any questions affecting only  individual persons, and a class action is superior with respect to considerations of consistency,  economy, efficiency, fairness and equity, to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the state law claims.  69.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the FLSA Collective (Shift Differential),  reasserts and incorporates by reference all paragraphs set forth above as if restated herein.     70.  At all times material herein, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Shift Differential)  have been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §  201 et seq.   71.  At all times material herein, Defendant was an employer of Plaintiff and the  FLSA Collective (Shift Differential) as provided under the FLSA.   73.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Shift Differential) are victims of uniform  compensation policy and practice in violation of the FLSA.   74.  Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to account for and compensate Plaintiff  and the FLSA Collective (Shift Differential) for overtime premium pay for each hour they  worked in excess of forty (40) hours each workweek.   75.  Defendant suffered or permitted Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Shift  Differential) to perform work without being properly or lawfully compensated at the agreed- upon rate(s) of pay for each hour worked, including with monetary “Shift Differentials” for  working a minimum of four (4) hours in second shift and/or third shift. The effect of such a  practice was for Defendant to deny Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Shift Differential) agreed- upon wages, including overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.   76.  The FLSA regulates, among other things, the payment of an overtime premium by  employers whose employees are engaged in commerce, or engaged in the production of goods  for commerce, or employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods  for commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   77.  Defendant was and is subject to the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA  because Defendant is an enterprise engaged in commerce and/or its employees are engaged in  commerce, as defined in FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(b).   79.  As a result of the aforesaid willful violations of the FLSA’s provisions, overtime  compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Defendant from Plaintiff and the FLSA  Collective (Shift Differential) for which Defendant is liable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   80.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Shift Differential) are entitled to damages  equal to the mandated overtime premium pay within the three (3) years preceding the date of  filing of this Complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling because Defendant acted willfully and  knew or showed reckless disregard of whether its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA.   81.  Pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), successful Plaintiffs are entitled to  reimbursement of the costs and attorneys’ fees expended in successfully prosecuting an action  for unpaid wages and overtime wages.    82.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary  Compensation), reasserts and incorporates by reference all paragraphs set forth above as if  restated herein.    84.  At all times material herein, Defendant was an employer of Plaintiff and the  FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation) as provided under the FLSA.   85.  At all times material herein, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Non- Discretionary Compensation) were employees of Defendant as provided under the FLSA.   86.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation) are victims  of uniform compensation policy and practice in violation of the FLSA.   87.  Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to account for and compensate Plaintiff  and the FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation) for overtime premium pay for each  hour worked in excess of forty (40) hours each workweek.   88.  Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to account for and compensate Plaintiff  and the FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation) for overtime premium pay at the  proper and correct overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) hours each  workweek.   89.  The FLSA regulates, among other things, the payment of an overtime premium by  employers whose employees are engaged in commerce, or engaged in the production of goods  for commerce, or employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods  for commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   91.  Defendant’s failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective  (Non-Discretionary Compensation) and failure to properly include all forms of non-discretionary  compensation in the regular rate of pay for overtime calculations purposes was willfully  perpetrated. Defendant also has not acted in good faith or with reasonable grounds to believe its  actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and as a result thereof, Plaintiff and the  FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation) are entitled to recover an award of  liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime premium pay described  above pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Alternatively, should the  Court find that Defendant acted in good faith or with reasonable grounds in failing to pay  overtime premium pay wages, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary  Compensation) are entitled to an award of pre-judgment interest at the applicable legal rate.   92.  As a result of the aforesaid willful violations of the FLSA’s provisions, overtime  compensation has been unlawfully withheld by Defendant from Plaintiff and the FLSA  Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation) for which Defendant is liable pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).   93.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation) are entitled  to damages equal to the mandated overtime premium pay within the three (3) years preceding the  date of filing of this Complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling because Defendant acted  willfully and knew or showed reckless disregard of whether its conduct was prohibited by the  95.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Wisconsin Class (Shift Differential), re- alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs as if they were set forth herein.   96.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Wisconsin Class (Shift Differential) were  employees of Defendant within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 109.01(1r), 103.001(5), and  104.01(2)(a).   97.  At all relevant times, Defendant was an employer of Plaintiff and the Wisconsin  Class (Shift Differential) within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 109.01(2), 103.001(6), and  104.01(3)(a), and Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 272.01(5).   98.  At all relevant times, Defendant has employed, and continues to employ, Plaintiff  and the Wisconsin Class (Shift Differential) within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 109.01 et seq.,  103.01 et seq., 104.01 et seq., and Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 272.01.     Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as Amended  (Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation))   Violations of the FLSA – Unpaid Overtime  (Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the FLSA Collective (Shift Differential))   Violation of the WWPCL – Unpaid Overtime  (Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Wisconsin Class (Shift Differential))  