11.Plaintiff and those similarly situated are all employees within the meaning of Section 23(e) of  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 203(e). Plaintiff is a covered employee within the meaning of the  FLSA, and Ohio statutory law.   12.Defendant Nida’s is an employer within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.  Section 203(d). In connection with the operation of the restaurant, food, supplies, equipment  and other goods are shipped to Defendant via interstate commerce. During the respective  periods of their employment by Defendant, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were engaged  in handling, selling or otherwise working on goods that were moved in or produced for interstate  commerce and customers engaged in interstate commerce. By reason of these activities, the  Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are or were engaged in commerce and in the production  of goods for commerce, within the meaning of §3 (s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(s). By virtue  Case: 2:20-cv-02477-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/18/20 Page: 4 of 8  PAGEID #: 4 5  of its operations, Defendant is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods  for commerce, as defined in §3(s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(s).   13.Defendants are subject to compliance with the overtime requirements and minimum wage  requirements contained in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Ohio Revised  Code § 4111.01, et seq.   14.Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants employed over four individuals.   15.At all relevant times, Defendants have maintained control, oversight, and direction over  Plaintiff, including timekeeping, payroll and other employment practices that applied to her.   16.At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were primarily responsible for setting the compensation  to be paid to employees at Nida’s, including Plaintiff, and for establishing and maintaining the  company’s payroll policies.   17.Defendants, and each of them, are a covered employer within the meaning of the FLSA, and  Ohio law, and, at all times relevant, employed Plaintiff.   18.At all relevant times, Plaintiff has been employed by an entity engaged in commerce and/or the  production or sale of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.,  and/or has been engaged in commerce and/or the production or sale of goods for commerce  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.   19.At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continue to be, employers engaged in interstate  commerce and/or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of FLSA, 29  U.S.C. §203. At all relevant times, Defendants have employed "employee[s]," including  Plaintiff.  20.Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth above.  Case: 2:20-cv-02477-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/18/20 Page: 5 of 8  PAGEID #: 5 6   21.Since at least March 2017, Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to pay  employees the statutory minimum wage and of failing to pay required overtime by conduct  including but not limited to the following:  (a) Unilaterally deducting for “rules” violations remuneration from the wages and tips  worked by employees of the Defendant.  (b) Failing to properly pay any hourly wages  (c) Running an illegal “tip pool”  (d) Illegally retaining employees’ tips  (e) Improperly claiming “tip credit” toward employees’ wages.  (f) Failing to maintain records of the hours worked by Plaintiff and their other staff at  Nida’s, as mandated by federal and state law.   22.By the above and other acts and conduct Defendant repeatedly have violated and are now  violating the provisions of §§3, 6, and/or 5(a)(2) of the FLSA.   23.By the acts and conduct described above Defendant repeatedly has violated and is now violating  the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §§206 and 215(a)(1) and/or (2).   24.The records concerning the number of hours Plaintiffs were required to work and for which  Plaintiffs have not been compensated have, upon information and belief, not been kept at all. If  such records have been kept, they are in the exclusive possession and control of Defendant.   25.The above described pattern and practice of willful systemic violation of the FLSA complained  of by Plaintiffs have similarly affected other employees so that such employees are common  and typical to each other.   26.Defendant' s violations have been willful and/or in willful and reckless disregard of Plaintiffs'  rights and entitle Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees to liquidated damages.  Case: 2:20-cv-02477-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/18/20 Page: 6 of 8  PAGEID #: 6 7  27.Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth above.   28.The Ohio Minimum Wage Act ("OMWA) requires an employer to pay each of his employees  a minimum wage under O.R.C. Section 4111.02(A), which Plaintiff and those similarly situated  did not receive and for which willfully or recklessly deprivations by Nida’s should be held liable  for liquidated and punitive damages.   29.Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth above.   30.As part of the employment contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant agreed to pay  Plaintiffs a specified hourly rate for all hours worked.   31.Plaintiff performed services for Defendant but were not paid for all hours worked.   32.Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked constitutes a breach of the employment  contract.   33.As a result of the Defendant's breach, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of unpaid  wages and are entitled to judgment in the amount of wages earned but not paid by Defendant. 