27.  Gabe’s is a privately held corporation with its headquarters located in Morgantown,  West Virginia.  According to its website, Gabe’s  sells “ brand name fashions and footwear for the  entire family, home décor and kitchen tools, work gear, great gets for pets, and more.”  See  https://www.gabesstores.com/about-gabes (last accessed November 26, 2019).   28.  Gabe’s owns and operates 107 stores in thirteen (13) states: Delaware, Georgia,  Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,  Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.  Id.  Gabe’s employs AMs at each its stores.   29.  Gabe’s maintains strict control, oversight, and discretion over the operation of its  stores, including its employment practices with respect to Plaintiff and the members of the putative  AM Class and AM Collective.   31.  Consistent with Gabe’s policy, pattern and/or practice, Plaintiff and the members  of the putative AM Class and AM Collective worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek  without being paid overtime compensation.  AMs are scheduled to work at least 47.5 hours each  workweek (with a 30-minute lunch break each day), however, in reality AMs work more hours  each workweek.   32.  All of the work that Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class and AM  Collective performed has been assigned by Gabe’s, who is aware of the work they performed.  This  work required little skill and no capital investment.  Nor did it include managerial responsibilities,  or the exercise of meaningful independent judgment and discretion.   33.  Pursuant to a centralized, company-wide policy, pattern and/or practice, Gabe’s  classifies all AMs as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and PMWA.   34.  The primary job duties of Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class and  AM Collective did not include hiring, firing, or disciplining other employees.      35.  The primary job duties of Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class and  AM Collective did not materially differ from the job duties of non-exempt hourly paid employees.   36.  The primary job duties of Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class and  AM Collective did not include the exercise of meaningful independent discretion with respect to  their duties.     38.  Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class and AM Collective are  similarly situated in that they have substantially similar job duties and are subject to Gabe’s  common compensation policies, patterns, and/or practices.   39.  Upon information and belief, Gabe’s did not perform a person-by-person analysis  of Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class’s and AM Collective’s job duties when  making the decision to classify AMs as exempt from overtime under the FLSA and PMWA.   40.  Due to the foregoing, Gabe’s failure to pay overtime wages for work performed by  Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class and AM Collective in excess of forty (40)  hours per week was willful.   41.  The work performed by Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class and  AM Collective constitutes compensable work time under the FLSA and PMWA and was not  preliminary, postliminary or de minimis.    42.  Gabe’s unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.  43.  Plaintiff brings the First Cause of Action, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of herself  and the putative AM Collective.    44.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective were  engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29  U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 207(a).   45.  Gabe’s is an employer of Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective  and is engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of  29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 207(a).   47.  Gabe’s has failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective  overtime compensation to which they are entitled under the FLSA.   48.  Gabe’s has failed to keep accurate records of time worked by Plaintiff and the  members of the putative AM Collective.   49.  Defendant is liable under the FLSA for, among other things, failing to properly  compensate Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective.    50.   Consistent with Defendant’s policy and pattern or practice, Plaintiff and the  members of the putative AM Collective were not paid overtime compensation when they worked  beyond forty (40) hours in a workweek.   51.  All of the work that Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective  performed has been assigned by Defendant, and/or Defendant has been aware of such work.   53.  Defendant is aware or should have been aware that federal law required it to pay  Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective overtime compensation for all hours  worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.   54.  Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective perform or performed the  same primary duties.   55.  Defendant’s unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.  56.  Plaintiff bring the Second Cause of Action, 43 Pa. Stat. § 333.113, under Rule 23  of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and the members of the AM Class.   57.  The persons in the AM Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  Although Plaintiff does not know the precise number of such persons, the facts on  which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the sole control of  Defendant.   58.  Upon information and belief, the size of the AM Class is at least fifty (50) workers.   59.  The Second Cause of Action is properly maintainable as a class action under  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  There are questions of law and fact common to the AM  Class that predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members.   61.  The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the members of the putative AM  Class she seeks to represent.  Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class work or have  worked for Defendant and have been subjected to its policy and pattern or practice of failing to  pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.    62.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the putative AM Class.  Plaintiff understands that, as the class representatives, she  assumes a fiduciary responsibility to the members of the putative AM Class to represent their  interests fairly and adequately.  Plaintiff recognizes that as the class representative, she must  represent and consider the interests of the members of the putative AM Class just as she would  represent and consider her own interests.  Plaintiff understands that in decisions regarding the  conduct of the litigation and any potential settlement she must not favor her own interests over  those members of the putative AM Class.  Plaintiff recognizes that any resolution of a class action  lawsuit, including any settlement or dismissal thereof, must be in the best interests of the members  of the putative AM Class.  Plaintiff also understands that in order to provide adequate  representation, she must remain informed of developments in the litigation, cooperate with class  counsel by providing them with information and any relevant documentary material in their  possession, and testify, if required, in a deposition and in trial.   64.  Class certification of Plaintiff’s claims is appropriate because Gabe’s has acted or  refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the AM Class, making appropriate both  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the AM Class.  The AM Class is entitled to  injunctive relief to end Gabe’s common and uniform policy and practice.   65.  Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action  wage and hour litigation.   66.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that would be encountered in the management of  this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.  67.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above allegations.   68.  Gabe’s has engaged in a widespread policy, pattern or practice of violating the  FLSA in regard to Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective, as detailed in this  Collective Action Complaint.   70.  Gabe’s knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that their underfunding of store  labor budgets resulted in Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective (who were not  paid overtime) working more than forty (40) hours in a workweek without receiving any overtime  compensation.  This allowed Gabe’s to avoid paying additional wages (including overtime) to the  non-exempt, store-level employees.      71.  Because Gabe’s underfunded store labor budgets, which in turn limited the amount  of money available to pay non-exempt employees to perform manual and customer service tasks,  AMs were required to – and did – perform these non-exempt tasks.   72.  In fact, the performance of non-management work was the primary duty of Plaintiff  and the members of the AM Collective.  These primary duties included serving customers, ringing  customers up on the cash register, preparing food, working the drive-thru, stocking, counting  inventory, and cleaning the store.   73.  Gabe’s knew, by virtue of the fact that its upper level management employees (as  its authorized agents) actually saw Plaintiff and the members of the AM Collective primarily  perform manual labor and non-exempt duties, that Plaintiff and other similarly situated AMs were  not performing activities that complied with any FLSA exemption.  Inasmuch as Gabe’s is a  substantial corporate entity aware of its obligations under the FLSA, it acted willfully or recklessly  in failing to classify Plaintiff and other similarly situated AMs as non-exempt employees.   75.  Gabe’s unlawful conduct, as described above, was willful and/or in reckless  disregard of the applicable wage and hour laws pursuant to Gabe’s centralized, company-wide  policy, pattern, and/or practice of attempting to minimize labor costs by violating the FLSA.   76.  As further evidence of its willful or reckless failure to classify Plaintiff and the  members of the AM Collective as non-exempt employees, Gabe’s has uniformly failed to: (a)  accurately track or record actual hours worked by Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM  Collective; and (b) provide Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective with a method  to accurately record the hours they actually worked.     77.  Gabe’s did not make a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with respect to  its timekeeping and compensation of Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Collective.   78.  Gabe’s was or should have been aware that the FLSA required it to pay employees  performing non-exempt duties an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per  week.    80.  Upon information and belief, there are potentially hundreds of similarly situated  current and former AMs who have been underpaid in violation of the FLSA and who would benefit  from the issuance of a court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it.  Thus,  notice should be sent to the members of the putative AM Collective, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b).   81.  The members of the putative AM Collective are known to Gabe’s, are readily  identifiable, and can be located through Gabe’s records.   82.  Because Gabe’s violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year statute of  limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255, as it may be further extended or tolled by  agreement, equity or operation of law.   83.  As a result of Gabe’s willful violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the members of  the putative AM Collective have suffered damages by being denied overtime compensation in  accordance with the FLSA, in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of  such amounts, as well as liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  84.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above allegations.   85.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in 43 Pa. Stat. § 333.101 et seq. of the  PMWA apply to Gabe’s.   87.  At all relevant times, Defendant has employed, and/or continues to employ,  “employee[s],” including Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class, within the meaning  of the PMWA.   88.  The PMWA requires an employer, such as Defendant, to compensate all non- exempt employees for all hours worked.  Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class are  non-exempt employees entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.   89.  The members of the putative AM Class are similarly situated because they all  performed the same primary duties, responsibilities and activities, and all are subject to Gabe’s  common policy and practice, implemented throughout the state of Pennsylvania, of misclassifying  them as exempt from the overtime requirements of the PMWA.   90.  The primary duties of Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class were  non-exempt in nature and included serving customers, breaking down shipments, preparing food,  setting up displays, stocking shelves, physically moving merchandise, counting inventory, and  cleaning the store.   91.  Gabe’s unlawful conduct was willful and/or in reckless disregard of the PMWA,  and was done pursuant to Gabe’s centralized, company-wide policy, pattern and/or practice of  attempting to minimize labor costs by misclassifying Plaintiff and the members of the putative  AM Class as exempt but requiring them to perform non-exempt duties as their primary duties.   92.  At all relevant times, Defendant had a policy and practice of failing and refusing to  pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the members of the putative AM Class for all hours  worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.   94.  As a result of Gabe’s violation of the PMWA, Plaintiff and the members of the  putative AM Class suffered damages by being denied overtime compensation in accordance with  the PMWA, in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, as  well as attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 43 Pa. Stat. § 333.113.  Fair Labor Standards Act: Unpaid Overtime Wages  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and the AM Collective)   Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act – Unpaid Overtime  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the AM Class)  