17.   Defendant operates a nationwide chain of upscale bar/restaurants called Bar Louie.    18.   Defendant employs bartenders to provide services to its restaurant patrons.   19.   Plaintiff is currently employed as a bartender at Defendant’s San Antonio, Texas Bar  Louie restaurant.  Plaintiff was hired on or about March of 2013.  Plaintiff works 35 to 40 hours  per week.        20.   Defendant pays its bartenders at an hourly rate below minimum wage ($2.13 per hour)  plus tips.  By paying Plaintiff and Class Members less than the minimum wage per hour,  Defendant is taking advantage of a tip credit which allows Defendant to include in its calculation  of wages a portion of the amounts Plaintiff receives as tips.     21.   Defendant violated the FLSA when it required Plaintiff and Class Members to share tips  with its salaried bar managers in violation of the FLSA’s tip pool requirements.  In addition, by  deducting more than the actual credit card fees associated with liquidated credit card tips,  Defendant has violated the FLSA.      23.   As such, the Plaintiff and other bartenders were not compensated at the federally  mandated minimum wage.  Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ tips have also been misappropriated  by Defendant as a result of its wage violations.        24.   Defendant knows or should have known that its policies and practices violate the FLSA,  and Defendant has not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA.  Rather, Defendant  knowingly, willfully, and/or with reckless disregard of the law carried and continues to carry out  its illegal pattern and practice regarding its tipped employees. Defendant’s method of paying  Plaintiff in violation of the FLSA was not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that its  conduct complied with the FLSA.  This is not Defendant’s first FLSA lawsuit.  It has been sued  in other states for similar wage violations.  However, it continues similar illegal pay practices  today.  Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to a three-year statute of limitations.     29.   Defendant takes a tip credit against its minimum wage obligations for the Plaintiff and all  of its bartenders.  Defendant also requires Plaintiff and all of its bartenders to share tips with its  salaried bar managers.  This pay practice applies nationwide to all of its restaurant locations.   30.   The Class Members perform or have performed the same or similar work as the Plaintiff.   31.   Class Members are not exempt from receiving pay at the federally mandated minimum  wage rate under the FLSA.   32.   As such, Class Members are similar to Plaintiff in terms of job duties, pay structure,  and/or the denial of minimum wage.   33.   Defendant’s 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 Class Members.   34.   The experiences of the Plaintiff, with respect to his pay, are typical of the experiences of  the Class Members.   35.   The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each Class Member does not  prevent collective treatment.   36.   All Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are entitled to  compensation for hours worked at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.   38.   Due to the inherent nature of Defendant’s tip credit and tip pool policies, all of  Defendant’s employees subject to a tip credit are similarly situated with respect to the violation.   39.   As such, the class of similarly situated Plaintiffs is properly defined as follows:  Current and former bartenders employed by Defendant nationwide at any  time three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit to the present.  