26.  In approximately June 2016, Defendant hired Plaintiff into the position of  Member Relations Advisor.    27.  On or about November 8, 2018, Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant ended.   29.  The vast majority of Defendant’s employees during the three (3) year period  immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint (ECF No. 1) were hourly-paid, non-exempt  employees.   30.  During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s usual and customary  weekly work schedule was: Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, from 8:30 a.m. to  5:00 p.m.; Thursdays, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and occasional weekends.   31.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), the usual and customary weekly work schedules and hours of work of  the vast majority of Defendant’s hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor  employees, including Plaintiff, was Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, from 8:30  a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Thursdays, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and occasional weekends.   32.  Within the three (3) years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint  (ECF No. 1), Defendant operated approximately six (6) physical locations in the State of  Wisconsin: Kaukauna; Appleton; Kimberly; Little Chute; Grand Chute; and Freedom. Each  location had the same business (lobby) hours: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday, from  8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Thursday, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.   33.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations  Advisor employees often worked at least and/or in excess of five (5) days per workweek.   35.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant compensated its hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations  Advisor employees, including Plaintiff, bi-weekly via check.   36.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s workweek for FLSA and WWPCL purposes was  Wednesday through Tuesday.   37.  On a daily basis during Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked  alongside other hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees.   38.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant provided Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt  Member Relations Advisor employees with a written “Employee Manual.”    39.  Defendant’s “Employee Manual” contained the terms and conditions of  employment for its hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees, including  Plaintiff.   40.  Defendant’s “Employee Manual” contained the company-wide, uniform policies  applicable to its hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees, including  Plaintiff.   42.  Defendant’s “Employee Manual” contained a “Wages and Salary Administration”  policy that applied to its hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees,  including Plaintiff.   43.  Defendant’s “Wages and Salary Administration” policy as contained in its  “Employee Manual” stated: “Member Relations Representatives are required to report in  adequate time to have their work station operable prior to their scheduled shift, by at least 7:20  when working the early shift, and 8:25 when working the later shift.”   44.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s expectations and directives as communicated to its hourly- paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees, including Plaintiff, was to arrive to  work prior to their respective scheduled shift start times “in adequate time to have their work  station[s] operable prior to their scheduled shift, by at least 7:20 when working the early shift,  and 8:25 when working the later shift.”   45.  Defendant’s “Wages and Salary Administration” policy as contained in its  “Employee Manual” further stated: “All full time, non-exempt employees are paid based on the  time worked in the week consisting of Wednesday through Tuesday. Overtime pay will be paid  to an employee for time worked beyond 40 hours in the work week (Wednesday through  Tuesday).   47.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), it was the common practice of all hourly-paid, non-exempt Member  Relations Advisor employees, including Plaintiff, to perform compensable work prior to their  respective scheduled shift start times in the furtherance of performing their respective job duties  at Defendant.   48.  Immediately after arriving to work at Defendant each workday at the beginning of  their shift, Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees  performed compensable work.   49.  Immediately prior to leaving work at Defendant each workday at the end of their  shift, Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees  performed compensable work.   50.  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  Member Relations Advisor employees with, in addition to their hourly or regular rates of pay,  other non-discretionary forms of compensation, such as performance bonuses, commissions,  incentives, and/or other monetary rewards.   52.   During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), the forms of compensation that Defendant compensated Plaintiff and all  other hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees with in addition to their  hourly or regular rates of pay were non-discretionary in nature: they were based on Plaintiff’s  and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees’ hours worked  and/or work performance.   53.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant failed to include all non-discretionary forms of compensation  in Plaintiff’s and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees’  regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes.   54.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant did not properly and lawfully compensate Plaintiff and all  other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours actually worked each workday and each  workweek.   55.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s practice was to unlawfully and impermissibly shave time  and recorded hours of work from the timesheets of Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non- exempt Member Relations Advisor employees for its own benefit and to the detriment of said  employees.   57.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendant’s practice was to unlawfully and impermissibly fail to  compensate Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor  employees for all hours actually worked each workweek, including but not limited to at an  overtime rate of pay.   58.  During the three (3) year period immediately preceding the filing of this  Complaint (ECF No. 1) and during weeks when no overtime was due, if any, Defendant suffered  or permitted Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor  employees to work without being paid appropriate and lawful compensation for all hours  worked.    59.  Defendant was or should have been aware that it was shaving time from  Plaintiff’s and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees’  timesheets by rounding recorded hours of work for its own benefit and to the detriment of said  employees each work day, thus failing to compensate said employees when compensable work  commenced and/or ceased.   61.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated  employees as authorized under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The similarly situated employees  include:   FLSA Collective (Timeshaving):  All hourly-paid, non-exempt  Member Relations Advisor employees who are or have been  employed by Defendant within three (3) years immediately prior to  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 as a result of impermissible and unlawful time shaving  and rounding by Defendant.   FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation):  All  hourly-paid, non-exempt Member Relations Advisor employees  who are or have been employed by Defendant within three (3)  years immediately prior to the filing of this Complaint (ECF No. 1)  who received non-discretionary forms of compensation in addition  to regular wages that were not included in their regular rates of pay  for overtime calculation purposes.   62.  Defendant, as a matter of policy and practice, did not compensate its employees  for all hours of compensable work performed by the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving) during a  workweek. These practices resulted in Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving) being  denied overtime compensation by Defendant at the rate of one and one-half times their regular  hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.    63.  Defendant suffered or permitted Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving)  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 (Timeshaving)  their  agreed upon wages, including overtime compensation at one and one-half times the regular rate,  for the hours worked that were not counted as work.   65.  The First and Second Claims for Relief are 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.     66.  The FLSA Collective claims may be pursued by those who affirmatively opt in to  this case, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).     67.  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.   68.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collectives seek relief on a collective basis challenging,  among other FLSA violations, Defendant’s practice of failing to properly and lawfully  compensate employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation, and to include all  non-discretionary compensation, such as bonuses, commissions, incentives, and/or other  rewards, in the employees’ regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes.   70.  Defendant’s conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, was willful and in bad faith,  and has caused significant damages to Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collectives.  71.  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:   Wisconsin Class (Timeshaving):  All hourly-paid, non-exempt  employees who are or have been employed by Defendant within  two (2) years immediately prior to the filing of this Complaint  (ECF No. 1) who have not been compensated for all hours worked  in a workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for those hours  worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek, as a result of  impermissible and unlawful time shaving and rounding by  Defendant.  Wisconsin Class (Non-Discretionary Compensation):  All  hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who are or have been  employed by Defendant within two (2) years immediately prior to  the filing of this Complaint (ECF No. 1) who received non- discretionary forms of compensation in addition to regular wages  that were not included in their regular rates of pay for overtime  calculation purposes.    73.  The proposed Wisconsin Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable, and more importantly the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the  parties and the Court. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, upon  information and belief, there are over fifty (50) members of each of the Wisconsin Classes.   74.  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.   75.  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.   77.  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.   78.  Defendant has violated the WWPCL regarding payment of 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.   80.  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.  81.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving), reasserts  and incorporates by reference all paragraphs set forth above as if restated herein.     82.  At all times material herein, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving)  have been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §  201 et seq.   84.  At all times material herein, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving)  were employees of Defendant as provided under the FLSA.   85.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving) are victims of uniform  compensation policy and practice in violation of the FLSA.   86.  Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to account for and compensate Plaintiff  and the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving) for overtime premium pay for each hour they worked in  excess of forty (40) hours each workweek.   87.  Defendant suffered or permitted Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving)  to perform work without being properly or lawfully compensated for each hour worked. The  effect of such a practice was for Defendant to deny Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective  (Timeshaving) their agreed upon wage for the hours worked that were not counted as work,  including overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.   88.  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).   89.  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).   91.  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 (Timeshaving) for which Defendant is liable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   92.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving) 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.   94.  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.     95.  At all times material herein, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Non- Discretionary Compensation) have been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided  under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.   96.  At all times material herein, Defendant was an employer of Plaintiff and the  FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation) as provided under the FLSA.   97.  At all times material herein, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Non- Discretionary Compensation) were employees of Defendant as provided under the FLSA.   98.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation) are victims  of uniform compensation policy and practice in violation of the FLSA.   Violation of the FLSA – Unpaid Overtime  (Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the FLSA Collective (Non-Discretionary Compensation))   Violation of the FLSA – Unpaid Overtime  (Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the FLSA Collective (Timeshaving))  