11. The “fluctuating work week” model provides a method for an employer to pay a  reduced rate of overtime compensation to individuals who work in excess of 40 hours a week;  namely that the employer pays only ½ time for hours worked in excess of 40, and that the more  hours worked by the individual, the lower the ½ time rate falls.   12.  Cerner purported to compensate Plaintiffs Speer and McGuirk as Salaried  NonExempt Associates in compliance with the “fluctuating work week model” as described in  29 C.F.R. §778.114, but violated the same statute by failing to compensate Speer, McGuirk and  other similarly situated employees with the required fixed salary.   13. Namely, Salaried NonExempt Associates did not receive a fixed salary to cover all  hours worked, rather that salary fluctuated with regard the number of hours worked, and thus  there was no clear and mutual understanding that a fixed salary would cover all hours worked for  Cerner.   14. As “Salaried NonExempt Associates” Speer and McGuirk, and those similarly  situated to them, worked hours in excess of forty per week, but because of the improper  application of the Fluctuating Work Week method of pay, Defendant deprived Speer, McGuirk  and all other similarly situated Salaried NonExempt Associates of full compensation required  under the FLSA for overtime hours worked during the course of their employment.  15. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as  though fully set forth herein.   17. Plaintiffs Speer and McGuirk bring this Complaint as a collective action pursuant to  Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b), on behalf of all persons who were, are, or will be  employed by Defendant as Salaried NonExempt Associates.   18. This Complaint was brought and maintained as an “opt-in” collective action  pursuant to section 16 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b), for all claims asserted by the named  Plaintiffs because the claims of Speer and McGuirk are similar to the claims of the putative  plaintiffs of the representative action who have not been compensated at the rate required by the  FLSA for hours worked in excess of forty per week.   19. The FLSA class is to be defined as follows:  All persons employed by Defendant in the past three years who were purportedly  compensated based on the fluctuating work-week method of pay and who received  additional periodic compensation as part of his/her salary.   20. Speer, McGuirk and the putative representative action plaintiffs are similarly  situated, are subject to substantially similar pay provisions, and are subject to Defendant’s  common practice, policy, or plan of refusing to pay employees their statutorily required rate of  pay for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA.   21. The names and addresses of the putative members of the representative action are  available from Defendant.    22. At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an “employer”  engaged in the interstate “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for “commerce”  within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203.    24. At all times relevant herein, Defendant has had gross operating revenues in excess of  $500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Dollars).   25. The FLSA requires each covered employer, such as Defendant, to compensate all  nonexempt employees at a rate of not less than one and one-half the regular rate of pay for work  performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek.   26. Defendant failed to compensate Speer and McGuirk and all other similarly situated  Salaried NonExempt Associates at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate  of pay for work performed in excess of forty hours in a work week, and therefore, Defendant has  violated, and continues to violate, the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §  207(a)(1).    27. Defendant failed to compensate Speer and McGuirk and all other similarly situated  Salaried NonExempt Associates at the statutorily required rate for all hours worked.   28. The FLSA exempts certain categories of employees from overtime pay obligations;  however, none of the FLSA exemptions apply to Salaried NonExempt Associates.   29. Speer and McGuirk and all similarly situated employees are victims of a uniform  and company-wide compensation policy that violates the FLSA.   30. Upon information and belief, Defendant is improperly applying a uniform policy of  compensation that utilizes the fluctuating work week model of compensation when Defendant is  not and has not otherwise complied with the requirements set out in the FLSA to utilize such a  method of compensation.   35.  Paintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.     36. Count II is brought as a class action against Defendant on behalf of Plaintiffs and  other similarly situated workers employed by Defendant in Missouri   37. Under Count II, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,  seek relief on a class basis challenging Defendant’s practice of failing to fully and properly  compensate Missouri employees.   39.  Plaintiffs’ claim under Count II meets the commonality, typicality, adequacy, and  superiority requirements of a class action.   40.  This Rule 23 Class is believed to exceed forty persons. As a result, joinder of all  class members in a single action is impracticable. Class members may be informed of the  pendency of this class action.   41.  There are questions of fact and law common to the Rule 23 Class that  predominates over any questions affecting only individual members. The questions of law and  fact common to the class arising from Defendant’s actions include, without limitation, the  following:  Whether Defendant violated the Missouri Minimum Wage Law when it failed to pay  salaried non-exempt employees the overtime pay owed to them.   42.  The question set forth above regarding the Rule 23 Class predominates 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.   43.  Plaintiffs’ claims under Count II are typical of those of the Rule 23 Class in that  class members were subject to the same or similar unlawful practices.   45.  Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the respective class because they are  members of the class and their interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the  class they seek to represent. The interests of the members of the class will be fairly and  adequately protected by Plaintiffs and undersigned counsel who has experience in employment  and wage and hour litigation and in class and collective action litigation.   46.  Maintenance of this action as a class action is a fair and efficient method for  adjudication of this controversy. It would be impracticable and undesirable for each member of  the class who suffered harm to bring a separate action. In addition, the maintenance of separate  actions would place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the courts and could result in  inconsistent adjudications, while a single class action can determine, with judicial economy, the  rights of all class members.   47.  Plaintiffs and the putative class members bring this claim against Defendant.   48.  At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals  have been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under RSMo. § 290.500 et  seq.   49.  Defendant violated the MMWL in relevant part, by failing to pay all wages due to  Plaintiffs and the putative plaintiffs.   50.  Plaintiffs and the putative plaintiffs have thereby been damaged in an amount to  be determined at trial.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant on Count II of the  Complaint, for an award of compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as  provided by law, and for such other orders and further relief, including an award of attorney fees.   WAGE LAW RSMo. § 290.500 et seq. (“MMWL”) AS A RULE 23 CLASS   § 216(b) COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIM – FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  