20.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendant between approximately 1999 and November  12, 2019.    21.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a production employee.   23.  After extracting the base metal, Plaintiff poured the extracted metal into molds.     24.  After transferring the material to the molds, Plaintiff removed the finished product  from the molds and moved the finished product to a different area of the plant where it was  weighed.    25.  The weight of each finished product was recorded on paper and transferred to a  computer system to track production amounts.    26.  Plaintiff was paid a piece rate for the work he performed for Defendant.    27.  For example, when Plaintiff smelted parts he was paid $0.0350 per pound for metal  extracted from engines and $0.0250 per pound for metal extracted from transmissions.    28.  For the work week ending November 13, 2019 Plaintiff processed 10,662 pounds  of engine materials and 26,828 pounds of transmission materials. See Ex. B, attached hereto. For  that work week Plaintiff was provided a paycheck in the gross amount of $1,043.87  (10,662*0.0350 plus 26,828*0.0250). See Ex. C, attached hereto.    29.  Plaintiff used a timeclock to track the number of hours he worked each week.    30.  During the last three years, Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours in one or more  individual work weeks during the prior three years.    31.  In one or more individual work weeks in the last three years, Plaintiff was not paid  overtime pay at the rate of one-and-one half times his regular rate of pay for the time he worked  in excess of forty (40) hours.     33.  The “Safety Equipment Uniform” deduction was for laundry service provided for  by Defendant.   34.  The uniform deductions made by Defendant from Plaintiff’s compensation were  not required by law.   35.  The uniform deductions made by Defendant from Plaintiff’s compensation were  not to Plaintiff’s benefit.    36.  The uniform deductions made by Defendant from Plaintiff’s compensation were  not in response to a valid wage assignment or a wage deduction order.   37.  The uniform deductions made by Defendant from Plaintiff’s compensation were  not made with the express written consent of Plaintiff, given freely at the time the deductions  were made.   38.  During all weeks that Plaintiff performed labor for Defendant:   a. Plaintiff’s work was to the benefit of Defendant;   b. Plaintiff’s work was an integral part of Defendant’s business;  c. Defendant had control or influence over the terms or conditions of Plaintiff’s  employment, including the Plaintiff’s work schedule;  d. Defendant owned or leases the premises where Plaintiff performed his work;  and   e. Defendant provided the tools or materials used by Plaintiff to perform the work.  39.  In the prior three years, Defendant employed one or more other persons who were  paid on a piece rate basis (“proposed FLSA collective”).    41.  During all weeks that the proposed FLSA collective performed labor for Defendant:   a. Their work was to the benefit of Defendant;   b. Their work was an integral part of Defendant’s business;  c. Defendant had control or influence over the terms or conditions of the proposed  FLSA collective’s employment, including their work schedule;  d. Defendant owned or leases the premises where the proposed FLSA collective  performed their work; and   e. Defendant provided the tools or materials used by the proposed FLSA collective  to perform the work.   42.  Plaintiff and other members of the proposed FLSA collective worked as non- exempt employees eligible for overtime pay.    43.  The proposed FLSA collective used a timeclock to track the number of hours they  worked each week.    44.  The proposed FLSA collective worked in excess of forty hours in one or more  individual work weeks during the prior three years.    45.  The proposed FLSA collective was paid a piece rate for the work they performed.     46.  The proposed FLSA collective was not paid overtime pay at the rate of one-and- one half times their regular rate of pay for the time they worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  week.    47.  The proposed FLSA collective would benefit from the issuance of a court- supervised notice of this lawsuit for purposes of being informed of their opportunity to join.     49.  Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this  action on behalf of himself and other current and former employees who worked for Defendant  and were paid on a piece rate basis and who had deductions taken from their compensation for  uniforms.    50.  The IMWL class Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as “all persons who worked  for Defendant in the State of Illinois between June 10, 2017 and the present (the “IMWL class  period”) who were paid on a piece rate basis (the “proposed IMWL Class”).    51.  The IWPCA class Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as “all persons employed  in the State of Illinois by Defendants as hourly employees from June 10, 2010 and the present (the  “IWPCA class period”) who have been subject to Defendant’s uniform deduction policy (the  “proposed IWPCA Class”).”   53.  The proposed IMWL and IWPCA classes are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.    54.  During the IMWL class period, Defendant employed more than 40 persons who  fall within the class description.    55.  During the IWPCA class period, Defendant employed more than 40 persons who  fall within the class description.    56.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical to the members of the proposed  classes.    57.  The named Plaintiff and the proposed IMWL Class worked more than forty (40)  hours in one or more individual work weeks and were not paid overtime compensation.    58.  Each member of the proposed IMWL class was paid on piece rate basis regardless  of the number of hours they worked each week.    59.  The named Plaintiff and the proposed IWPCA Class were all subject to Defendant’s  uniform deduction policy.    60.  Each member of the proposed IWPCA class had deductions taken from their  compensation in one or more individual work weeks for uniform related expenses.     61.  As a result, each member of the proposed IMWL class suffered the same harm.   62.  As a result, each member of the proposed IWPCA class suffered the same harm.    63.  Each proposed class members’ claim is controlled by Illinois’s wage and hour  statutory scheme and one set of facts. Pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), questions of law and fact  are common to the class and predominate over any individual questions.    65.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.   66.  Prosecuting hundreds of identical, individual lawsuits would not promote judicial  efficiency or equity, nor result in consistent results. Class certification will eliminate the need for  duplicate litigation.    67.  Plaintiff will fully and adequately protect the interests of the proposed classes.    68.  Plaintiff seeks the same recovery as the classes, predicated upon the same violations  of law and the same damage theory.    69.  Plaintiff has retained counsel who are qualified and experienced in the prosecution  of statewide wage and hour class actions.    70.  Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have interests that are contrary to, or conflicting  with, the interests of the proposed classes.  71.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the previous allegations of this Complaint.   72.  This count arises from Defendant’s violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29  U.S.C. § 201, et seq., for its failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff at a rate of one-and-one-half  times his regular hourly rate of pay.    74.  For overtime work performed, the pieceworker employee is entitled to be paid all  his weekly earnings at his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in addition to half his regular  rate of pay multiplied by all the hours worked in excess of forty in that work week. 29 C.F.R. §  778.111(a).   75.  Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime wages for the hours he worked in excess  of forty (40) hours in a work week.     76.  Defendant did not pay one or more other production employees overtime pay for  the hours he or she worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a work week.     77.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207, for all weeks during which Plaintiff worked in excess  of forty (40) hours, he was entitled to be compensated at a rate of one-and-one-half times his  regular rate of pay.    78.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207, for all weeks during which other production  employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours, they were entitled to be compensated at a rate of  one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay.    79.  Defendant’s failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff for time worked in excess of  forty (40) hours per week was a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207.   81.  Defendant’s failure to pay overtime wages for time worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per week was a willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendant as follows:  A.  A judgment in the amount of one-and-one-half times Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay  for all time Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week;  B.  Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime  compensation found due;  C.  Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing this action; and  D.  Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.  82.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the previous allegations of this Complaint.   83.  The Plaintiff and the proposed IMWL class worked more than forty (40) hours in  one or more individual work weeks and were not paid overtime compensation.    84.  Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/4(a), for all weeks during which they worked in excess  of forty (40) hours, Plaintiff and the proposed IMWL Class were entitled to be compensated at one  and one half times their regular hourly rate of pay for time they worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per work week.    85.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the previous allegations of this Complaint.   86.  Defendant made deductions from the wages of Plaintiff and the proposed IWPCA  Class for, employee uniforms and laundering of uniforms worn by Plaintiff while working.   87.  Such deductions were not: (1) required by law; (2) to the employee’s benefit; (3) in  response to a valid wage assignment or wage deduction order; and (4) made with the express  written consent of the employee given freely at the time the deductions were made.   ILLINOIS WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION ACT   Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law -- Overtime Wages  (Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons)   Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act – Unlawful Deductions  (Class Action)   Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act -- Overtime Wages  (Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees)  