31.  Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective, all of whom regularly worked more  than forty (40) hours in a workweek, were employed as SMs by Defendants at their For Eyes  locations.   32.  Defendants maintain control, oversight, and discretion over the operation of their  retail stores, including their employment practices with respect to Plaintiff and the members of the  Putative FLSA Collective.   34.   Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective overtime  compensation for the hours they worked over forty (40) in a workweek.   35.  The number of shifts Plaintiff or each individual member of the Putative FLSA  Collective worked per week can be ascertained from Defendants’ records.   36.  Defendants have assigned all of the work that Plaintiff and the members of the  Putative FLSA Collective performed, and Defendants are aware of the work that they have  performed.   37.  Throughout the relevant period, it has been Defendants’ policy, pattern, or practice  to require, suffer, or permit Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective to work in excess of forty  (40) hours per workweek without paying them overtime wages for all overtime hours worked.     38.  This work required little skill and no capital investment. Nor did it include  managerial responsibilities, or the exercise of meaningful independent judgment and discretion.   39.  Throughout the period relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the  Putative FLSA Collective performed the same primary job duties, including, but not limited to:  a.  customer service;  b.  selling eyeglasses and contact lenses;  c.  setting up displays and merchandising;  d.  verifying insurance; and  e.  cleaning the store.   41.  Defendants maintain control, oversight, and discretion over the operation of its  retail stores, including its employment practices with respect to Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA  Collective.   42.  The primary duties of Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective were nonexempt.   43.  The primary job duties of Plaintiff and the members of the Putative FLSA  Collective did not materially differ from the duties of non-exempt hourly paid employees.  Their  primary duties were manual in nature.  The performance of manual labor and non-exempt duties  occupied the majority of the working hours of the Plaintiff and the members of the Putative FLSA  Collective.   44.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Putative FLSA Collective’s primary duties  were customer service related.  Customer service occupied the majority of the Plaintiff and the  other SMs’ working hours.   45.  Pursuant to a centralized, company-wide policy, pattern, and practice, Defendants  classified all SMs as exempt from coverage of the overtime provisions of the FLSA.    46.  Defendants did not perform a person-by-person analysis of every SMs’ job duties  when making the decision to classify all of them as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime protections.    48.  Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that underfunding store labor  budgets resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Putative FLSA Collective, who were not paid  overtime, primarily performing manual and non-exempt duties.     49.  By underfunding the store labor budget, Defendants avoided paying any overtime  compensation to the SMs for performing non-exempt activities over 40 hours a workweek. The  decision to misclassify SMs as exempt was calculated to allow Defendants to avoid paying  additional wages (including overtime) to the non-exempt store-level employees.   50.  Defendants failed to keep accurate records of all hours worked by Plaintiff and the  Members of the Putative FLSA Collective.   51.  Defendants assigned the work that Plaintiff and the members of the Putative FLSA  Collective have performed or Defendants were aware of the work they performed.    52.  The work performed by Plaintiff and the members of the Putative FLSA Collective  constitutes compensable work time under the FLSA and was not preliminary, postliminary or de  minimus.   53.  All members of the Putative FLSA Collective primarily performed the same or  substantially similar job duties.     54.  Plaintiff and the other SMs' primary duties did not differ substantially from the  duties of non-exempt hourly paid employees.   55.  Plaintiff and the other SMs did not exercise a meaningful degree of independent  discretion with respect to the exercise of their duties.    57.  Defendants also knew by virtue of its policies concerning scheduling and labor  budgets that Plaintiff and members of the Putative FLSA Collective regularly and customarily did  not direct two (2) or more employees, there frequently being only a SM and/or a SM and only one  (1) associate scheduled to work most shifts.   58.  As an experienced and practical retailer operating numerous stores in multiple  states, Defendants were aware  of, or recklessly disregarded the fact that by underfunding the labor  budgets for store locations, Plaintiff and members of the Putative FLSA Collective (a) did not  customarily and regularly direct two (2) or more employees; and (b) were primarily performing  non-exempt duties and not performing activities that would suffice to make their actual job duties  comply with any exemption under the applicable laws.  Inasmuch as Defendants are substantial  corporate entities aware of their obligations under the FLSA, they, accordingly, acted willfully or  recklessly in failing to classify Plaintiff and members of the Putative FLSA as non-exempt  employees.   59.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct as described above, was willful and/or in reckless  disregard of the applicable wage and hour laws pursuant to Defendants’ centralized, company- wide policy, pattern, and/or practice of attempting to minimize labor costs by violating the FLSA   61.  Defendants’ willful violations of the FLSA are further demonstrated by the fact that  Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient time record for Plaintiff and the members of  the Putative FLSA Collective.  Defendants acted recklessly or in willful disregard of the FLSA by  instituting a policy and/or practice that did not allow the Plaintiff and the members of the Putative  FLSA Collective to record all hours worked.   62.  Due to the foregoing the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages for work  performed by the Plaintiff and the members of the Putative FLSA Collective in excess of forty  (40) hours per workweek was willful and has been widespread, repeated and consistent.  63.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207 and § 216(b), Plaintiff seeks to prosecute her FLSA  claims as a collective action on behalf of herself and all persons who are or were formerly  employed by Defendants as SMs at their For Eyes locations, at any time from three (3) years prior  to the filing of this Collective Action Complaint to the entry of judgment in this case (the  “Collective Action Period”).    65.  Upon information and belief, there are numerous similarly situated current and  former SMs who have not been paid proper overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and who  would benefit from the issuance of court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to  join it.  Thus, notice should be sent to the Putative FLSA Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).    66.  Similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, readily identifiable and can  be located though Defendants’ records.  67.  Plaintiff and the members of the Putative FLSA Collective, reallege and incorporate  by reference paragraphs 1 to 65 above as if they were set forth again herein.   68.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiff, and employed or continue to  employ, each of the members of the Putative FLSA Collective within the meaning of the FLSA.   69.  Defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the  FLSA, as detailed in this Collective Action Complaint.   70.  Plaintiff has consented in writing to be parties to this action, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §  216(b).     71.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the members of the Putative FLSA Collective  were engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of  29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   72.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. apply to  Defendants.   74.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff and the members of the Putative FLSA Collective  were employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 207(a).   75.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated members of the  Putative FLSA Collective the overtime wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA.   76.  At all relevant times and continuing to the present time, Defendants had a  policy and practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation to its SMs for hours worked in  excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.    77.  As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to compensate their employees, including  Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective, at a rate not less than one and one-half times  the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, Defendants have  violated and, continue to violate, the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§  207(a)(1) and 215(a).    78.  As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to record, report, credit and/or compensate  its employees, including Plaintiff and the members of the Putative FLSA Collective, Defendants  have failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to each of their employees sufficient  to determine the wages, hours and other conditions and practices of employment in violation of  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(c) and 215(a).    79.  As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice of minimizing labor costs by  underfunding the labor budgets for its stores, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact  that Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective were primarily performing manual labor  and non-exempt tasks.    81.  As a result of Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the  members of the FLSA Collective, are entitled to recover from Defendants (a) their unpaid wages  for all of the hours worked by them, as overtime compensation, (b) an additional, equal amount as  liquidated damages for Defendants’ willful violations of the FLSA, and (c) their unreasonably  delayed payment of wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements of this action,  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), with such amounts to be determined at trial or through undisputed  record evidence.    82.  Defendants’ violations of the FLSA have been willful and as such a three-year  statute of limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.  FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective)  