10.  Wells Fargo is unjustly enriched by these practices, as the firm receives the  benefits and services of the New FAs for wages below minimum wage while providing little or  no meaningful training to the New FAs.  Worse, after terminating the employment of these new  3 https://www.wellsfargo.com/press/2009/20090101_Wachovia_Merger.  Wachovia itself had previously  absorbed Prudential Securities in 2003 in addition to A.G. Edwards in 2006.  3  FAs, Wells Fargo continues to be unjustly enriched, as it retains the clients these new FAs have  serviced and have brought to the firm, and the resulting client assets and fees and revenue  generated by these clients.   11.  Wells Fargo policies and practices regarding these so-called “Training Costs”  violate state and federal wage laws and the civil rights of African American New FAs.  The  practice also constitutes an unlawful kickback under the FLSA that leaves New FAs not earning  minimum wage or overtime if they are forced to pay “Training Costs.”     12.  The experiences of named plaintiff Erika Williams illustrate the unlawfulness and  unfairness of the challenged practices.  Williams earned her Master’s in Business Administration  from the University of Chicago in 2008.  After obtaining her MBA, Plaintiff gained experience in  the financial services and acquired her health and life insurance licenses and Series 7 license.     13.  Plaintiff was contacted by a Wells Fargo Diversity Recruiter in 2012 and was  recruited by the Firm as part of its efforts to increase its paltry representation of African  American FAs.  In February 2012, Wells Fargo hired Plaintiff as a New Financial Advisor  (or  FA Trainee) with a starting annual salary of $45,000.   14.  As a prerequisite to employment, Wells Fargo forced Plaintiff to sign a “New  Financial Advisor Training Agreement,” which required Plaintiff to reimburse $55,500 in  “Training Costs” if she left the firm within the first five years of her employment.  However,  Wells Fargo provided no meaningful training to Williams.  On the contrary, Wells Fargo  subjected Williams to race discrimination and constructively discharged her from the Firm in  June 2013.   15.  On September 5, 2013, Lance Slaughter filed a putative class action against Wells  Fargo, on behalf of African America Financial Advisors, entitled Slaughter et al. v. Wells Fargo  4  Advisors, LLC, No. 13-cv-6368, now pending in this Court before the Honorable Harry D.  Leinenweber.  This action alleges, among other things, that Wells Fargo does not provide equal  training and mentoring to African Americans.  The same intentionally discriminatory acts alleged  in that lawsuit cause further harm to African American New FAs, who fail at a higher rate and do  not receive equal benefits of the training contracts.  Wells Fargo’s “Training Costs” practices  disproportionately harm African Americans, who Wells Fargo actively recruits, fails to train,  subjects to race discrimination, and then disproportionately terminates.  These contract  provisions violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981.     16.  Notwithstanding Wells Fargo’s failure to provide training to Plaintiff, the Firm  demanded on February 3, 2014, that Williams repay $50,875 in “Training Costs,” an amount that  exceeds Plaintiff’s $45,000 annual salary.   17.  Williams is a putative class representative in Slaughter et al. v. Wells Fargo  Advisors, LLC, No. 13-cv-6368.   18.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks collective  action treatment of her claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b).    19.  Plaintiff seeks class certification of her claims under state wage laws, Illinois  common law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on  behalf of New Financial Advisors hired by Wells Fargo and forced to execute agreements  requiring their repayment of so-called “Training Costs” in the event of their separation from the  firm.     20.  Plaintiff also seeks to certify and represent a sub-class of African Americans who  5  worked for Defendant as New Financial Advisors and were forced to execute agreements  requiring their repayment of so-called “Training Costs” in the event of their separation from the  firm.      21.  Plaintiff seeks certification of a liability and injunctive and declaratory relief class  under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4), and/or certification of a broader class under Rule 23(b)(3).  All  requirements of class certification are met by the proposed class.  22.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, realleges the above  paragraphs and incorporates them by reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count I of  this Complaint.   23.  Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended, guarantees  persons of all races the same right to make and enforce contracts, regardless of race.  The term  “make and enforce” contracts includes the making, performance, modification, and termination  of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the  contractual relationship.    24.  Defendant maintained nationwide uniform, discriminatory employment practices  that constitute illegal intentional race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.     25.  Plaintiff and all those similarly situated were subjected to and harmed by the  challenged practices.   26.  Defendant’s unlawful conduct harmed Plaintiff and all those similarly situated.   27.  On behalf of herself and the class she seeks to represent, Plaintiff requests the  6  relief set forth below.   28.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, realleges the above  paragraphs by reference as though fully stated  herein as part of Count II of this Complaint.   29.  The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act prohibits an employer from taking  back wages that have been paid to employees.  Harrell v. U.S., 13 F.3d 232, 234 (7th Cir. 1993)  (“Once an employee has earned wages by having done the work that under his explicit or implicit  employment contract entitles him to those wages, he has a vested right to them.”).   30.  In seeking reimbursement for “Training Costs,” Wells Fargo unlawfully attempts  to take back wages in which Plaintiff and all those similarly situated have a vested right, causing  them harm.   31.  On behalf of herself and the class she seeks to represent, Plaintiff requests the  relief set forth below.   32.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, realleges the above  paragraphs and incorporates them by reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count III  of this Complaint.   33.  The Illinois Minimum Wage Law generally requires that employees receive wages  of not less than $8.25 per hour.  820 ILCS 105/4(a)(1).  7   34.  The Illinois Minimum Wage Law further requires that applicable employees  receive at least one and a half times their normal rate of wages for any hours worked in excess of  40 hours in a week.  820 ILCS 105/4a(1).  Plaintiff and all those similarly situated are not exempt  from the overtime requirements of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  See 820 ILCS 105/4a(2).   35.  Plaintiff and all those similarly situated were recruited by Wells Fargo as  Financial Advisor Trainees and earned and were paid wages.   36.  Plaintiff and all those similarly situated worked well in excess of 40 hours per  week as a Financial Advisor Trainee.  However, Wells Fargo failed to compensate Plaintiff  beyond her normal rate of pay on weeks she worked over 40 hours.   37.  Wells Fargo forced Plaintiff and all those similarly situated to sign an agreement  to pay the firm “Training Costs” if they left the Firm within the first five years of employment.     38.  Additionally, Wells Fargo charged “Training Costs” pursuant to its employment  agreements with Plaintiff.  Repayment of training costs has the effect of reducing the net income  earned by Plaintiff to below the minimum wage required by 820 ILCS 105/4(a)(1).   39.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and all others  similarly situated have been underpaid for the work they performed.  40.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, realleges the above  paragraphs and incorporates them by reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count IV  of this Complaint.   41.  Consistent with the requirements of the FLSA, see 29 C.F.R. § 531.35, Wells  Fargo was required to pay to Plaintiff and those similarly situated all wages they had earned fully,  8  unconditionally, and “free and clear” of any claim by Wells Fargo to a set off, kickback or other  recoupment.  To the extent that Wells Fargo paid Plaintiff and those similarly situated a wage on  the condition that Plaintiff pay back “Training Costs” up to $55,500, those wages were paid  conditionally and not “free and clear” as required by the FLSA.   42.  The Fair Labor Standards Act generally requires that employees receive wages of  not less than $7.25 per hour.  29 U.S.C. § 206.   43.  The Fair Labor Standards Act further requires that applicable employees receive at  least one and a half times their normal rate of wages for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours  in a week.  29 U.S.C. § 207.  Plaintiff and all those similarly situated are not exempt from the  overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  See 29 U.S.C. § 213.   44.  Plaintiff and all those similarly situated worked well in excess of 40 hours per  week as a Financial Advisor Trainee.  However, Wells Fargo failed to compensate Plaintiff  beyond her normal rate of pay on weeks she worked over 40 hours.   45.  Additionally, Wells Fargo forced Plaintiff and all those similarly situated to sign  an agreement to pay “Training Costs” if they left the Firm within the first five years of  employment.  Such payment of “Training Costs” reduces the wages of Plaintiff to below the  minimum wage required by 29 U.S.C. §206.   46.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and all others  similarly situated have been underpaid for the work they performed.  9  47.  Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, realleges and  incorporates the above paragraphs by reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count V  of this Complaint.   48.  Plaintiff and other New Financial Advisors, developed and serviced client  accounts and assets for Wells Fargo during their tenure for the Firm, which generated revenues  for Wells Fargo.   49.  After the employment of New FAs was terminated, Wells Fargo retained the  client accounts procured by New FAs, which continued to generate fees and revenues for Wells  Fargo.  The Firm did not compensate the New FAs for the benefits they retained as a result of  their work and efforts but instead sought to recover their wages as “Training Costs.”   50.  Plaintiff Erika Williams realleges the above paragraphs and incorporates them by  reference as though fully stated herein as part of Count VI of this Complaint.   51.  Defendant offered, and Plaintiff accepted, and employment agreement under  which Plaintiff joined Wells Fargo as a New Financial Advisor.   52.  In consideration of her employment agreement, Plaintiff provided Defendant with  her time and services to acquire accounts, commissions, and revenues for Defendant, and  Defendant provided Plaintiff with an annual salary.  10   53.  The employment agreements between Plaintiff and Defendant provided that,  during her time as a Financial Advisor Trainee, Plaintiff would be enrolled in Defendant’s  Financial Advisor Training Program to prepare Plaintiff to become a Financial Advisor.  The  agreement also provided that Defendant’s training costs totaled $55,000, which would have to be  repaid if Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant was terminated for any reason at any time prior  to five years of employment.   54.  Defendant breached the employment agreement by failing to provide Plaintiff  with training.  Notwithstanding its failure to train Plaintiff, after Plaintiff was constructively  discharged as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory policies and practices, Defendant demanded  repayment of training costs.   55.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered  damages.  7.  Wells Fargo has devised a scheme whereby the Firm recruits trainees, called New  Financial Advisors (“FAs”), and benefits from their services and the clients they develop and  serve, but then can recover most of, or even more than, the New FAs’ wages as what the firm  disingenuously calls “Training Costs” if these New FAs do not succeed in the worst economy in  recent memory or are fired by the firm.  This lawsuit challenges this practice on behalf of  plaintiff Erika Williams and all other similarly situated Wells Fargo New FAs subjected to this  practice.     8.  As a condition of employment, Wells Fargo forces New FAs to execute a one- sided and unlawful written agreement that obligates the New FAs to pay Wells Fargo what the  firm disingenuously calls “Training Costs.”  In so doing, Wells Fargo seeks to recover wages  earned by New FAs terminated within five years of being hired by the firm.  These “Training  Costs” are not a legitimate cost recovery measure for costs actually incurred by the firm or for  training actually provided to New FAs.    9.  In many cases, Wells Fargo seeks to recover more in “Training Costs” than the  wages actually earned by and paid to the New FAs, or costs that would result in the New FAs  earning less than the minimum wage after working tirelessly as Wells Fargo FAs.     BREACH OF CONTRACT IN VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS COMMON LAW  (Plaintiff Erika Williams)   RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF  42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981   UNJUST ENRICHMENT   VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS MINIMUM WAGE LAW, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. 29  C.F.R. § 531.35   VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION ACT, 820  ILCS 115/1 ET SEQ.   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.   