`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Newport News Division
`
`JULIE GLENNON and THOMAS E.
`OVERBY, JR., individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated
`
`
`
`
`
`ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Named Plaintiffs Julie Glennon and Thomas E. Overby, Jr. (“Named Plaintiffs”),
`
`individually and on behalf of others similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through
`
`their undersigned counsel of record, hereby sets forth this collective and class action against
`
`Defendant Anheuser-Busch, LLC (“Defendant”), and allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION AND INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`This action arises out of Defendant’s systemic, company-wide policy of failing to
`
`pay its employees for all hours worked and for overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime
`
`rate, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., the Virginia
`
`Minimum Wage Act (“VMWA”), Virginia Code §§ 40.1-28.8 et seq.; and the Virginia Wage
`
`Payment Act (“VWPA”), Virginia Code §§ 40.1-29 et seq.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs consist of current and former operators, technicians, engineers, or similar
`
`positions, who work for Defendant in Virginia and are compensated on an hourly basis.
`
`Throughout the relevant period, Defendant has maintained a corporate policy of failing to
`
`compensate Plaintiffs for all mandatory pre- and/or post-shift work. In particular, Defendant
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 23 PageID# 2
`
`requires Plaintiffs to arrive to work prior to the scheduled start time of Plaintiffs’ shifts, in order
`
`to perform a litany of tasks necessary to perform Plaintiffs’ jobs, including preparatory work,
`
`maintenance work, cleaning work, and paperwork, among other tasks. As for the end of Plaintiffs’
`
`shift, Plaintiffs are required to perform cleaning work, and numerous other tasks to properly wind
`
`down Plaintiffs’ shifts. Plaintiffs are required to perform this work in order to be prepared to carry
`
`out their job responsibilities when they arrive at job sites. This work was required to be completed
`
`by Defendants and the failure of Plaintiffs to perform this work could result in warnings, discipline,
`
`and ultimately, termination.
`
`3.
`
`Notably, Defendant only compensates Plaintiffs for their scheduled shifts and does
`
`not compensate Plaintiffs for the required pre- and/or post-shift work.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant, through its managers and agents, are aware that Plaintiffs are
`
`completing this pre and/or post-shift work and doing so without compensation. Defendant suffers
`
`or permits, and in fact requires Plaintiffs to complete such pre- and/or post-shift work.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs routinely work 40 hours or more per week, without accounting for pre-
`
`and/or post-shift work. When pre- and/or post-shift work are included, even those Plaintiffs who
`
`are scheduled and paid for only 40 hours or less per week, actually work over 40 hours per week
`
`without being compensated for all of their time worked or compensated at the proper overtime rate
`
`for hours worked over 40 per week.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant’s practice of failing to compensate Plaintiffs for all pre and post-shift
`
`work violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the FLSA, VMWA, and VWPA.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action for violations of the FLSA as a collective action,
`
`pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of the following class in
`
`Virginia:
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 3 of 23 PageID# 3
`
`All individuals who were, are, or will be employed by Defendant in Virginia as
`operators, technicians, engineers, or other similar positions who were not
`compensated for all of their hours worked, including, but not limited to, above forty
`(40) per week, within three (3) years prior to the commencement of this action,
`through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant is liable for its failure to pay Plaintiffs for all work performed.
`
`Plaintiffs who elect to participate in this FLSA collective action seek compensation
`
`
`
`for all pre and/or post-shift work performed for Defendant. Plaintiffs seek compensation at the
`
`appropriate overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week, an equal amount
`
`of liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 216(b).
`
`10.
`
`Named Plaintiffs also bring this action, on their own behalf, and as representatives
`
`of similarly situated current, former, or future operators, technicians, engineers, or similar
`
`positions, employed by Defendant in Virginia, under the VMWA and VWPA. Named Plaintiffs,
`
`who are Virginia residents, and who worked for Defendant in Virginia, assert that they and the
`
`putative class, who work or worked in Virginia for Defendant, are entitled to compensation for all
`
`pre- and/or post-shift work performed for Defendant, whether the work week totaled greater or
`
`fewer than forty (40) hours, compensation at the appropriate overtime rate for all hours worked in
`
`excess of forty (40) per week, an equal amount of liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 40.1-28.8, et seq., and 40.1-29 et seq.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure for the following class of Defendants’ employees in Virginia:
`
`All individuals who were, are, or will be employed by Defendant in Virginia as
`operators, technicians, engineers, or other similar positions who were not
`compensated for all of their hours worked, including, but not limited to, above forty
`(40) per week, within three (3) years prior to the commencement of this action,
`through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 4 of 23 PageID# 4
`
`12.
`
`Named Plaintiffs brings this lawsuit seeking monetary relief against Defendant on
`
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in Virginia to recover, among other things,
`
`unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and penalties pursuant to
`
`Virginia Code §§ 40.1-28.8 et seq., 40.1-29 et seq., and 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et. seq.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this collective and class action against Defendant for violations of
`
`Virginia Code §§ 40.1-28.8 et seq., 40.1-29 et seq., and 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et. seq.
`
`14.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`15.
`
`Additionally, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367
`
`over the pendent state law claims under the VMWA and VWPA because those state law claims
`
`arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact as the FLSA claims.
`
`16.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because, upon information and belief,
`
`it is a citizen of the United States, has sufficient minimum contacts in Virginia, or otherwise
`
`intentionally avail itself of the Virginia market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it
`
`by the Federal and Virginia courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`justice.
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant
`
`conducts business within the Eastern District of Virginia, and a substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in this District.
`
`COVERAGE
`
`18.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant was an employer within the meaning of the FLSA,
`
`29 U.S.C. § 203(d), the VMWA, and the VWPA.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 5 of 23 PageID# 5
`
`19.
`
`At all relevant times, Named Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated were
`
`employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning
`
`of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207.
`
`20.
`
`At all times material to this action, Defendant was an enterprise engaged in
`
`commerce or the production of goods for commerce as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(s),
`
`203(r), in that said enterprise has had employees engaged in commerce or in the production of
`
`goods for commerce, or employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials
`
`that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person, and in that said enterprise has
`
`had and has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000.
`
`PARTIES
`
`21.
`
`Named Plaintiffs are residents of Virginia. Named Plaintiffs worked for Defendant
`
`in Virginia at its Williamsburg, Virginia brewery during the relevant time period.
`
`22.
`
`Named Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that Defendant, at all times
`
`hereinafter mentioned, was and is an employer as defined in and subject to the FLSA and Virginia
`
`Code §§ 40.1-28.9, whose employees were and are engaged throughout this district and the
`
`Commonwealth of Virginia.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant is a limited liability company organized under Missouri law,
`
`headquartered in Missouri, and has its principal place of business located at One Busch Place, St
`
`Louis, MO, 63118. According to its website, Defendant “embod[ies] the time-honored traditions
`
`of brewing great beer while constantly innovating to drive the industry forward.”
`
`24.
`
`Defendant is an enterprise engaged in commerce under the FLSA because material
`
`hereto it had an annual gross volume of sales of more than $500,000.00.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 6 of 23 PageID# 6
`
`25.
`
`At all times relevant, Defendant was Named Plaintiffs’ employer and the employer
`
`of all other similarly situated individuals as defined by the FLSA and applicable state law.
`
`26.
`
`During the period from June 2013 through July 2021, Named Plaintiff Glennon was
`
`employed by Defendant in various capacities, with her last position being an operator. In this
`
`capacity, Named Plaintiff Glennon performed substantial and ongoing employment duties for the
`
`benefit of Defendant in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
`
`27.
`
`During the period from 1991 through the present, Named Plaintiff Overby was
`
`employed by Defendant in various capacities, with his last position being a maintenance
`
`technician. In this capacity, Named Plaintiff Overby performed substantial and ongoing
`
`employment duties for the benefit of Defendant in the Commonwealth of Virginia
`
`28.
`
`By acting as the Named Plaintiffs in this action, Named Plaintiffs, by including
`
`their name on the caption of this Collective and Class Action Complaint, affirms their written
`
`consent to participate as a plaintiff in a collective action to seek unpaid wages and damages under
`
`the FLSA and to act as class representatives for the Federal Rule 23 class claims alleged herein.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`29.
`
`Defendant employs operators, technicians, engineers, or similar positions in its
`
`brewery located in the city of Williamsburg in the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Williamsburg
`
`brewery”).
`
`30.
`
`According to Defendant’s website, “Opened in 1972, [the] Williamsburg Brewery
`
`produces nearly 400 different beer packages. [The] Williamsburg team has played a critical role
`
`in our innovation pipeline as the first brewery to brew Natural Light Naturdays, Bud Light Orange,
`
`and Michelob ULTRA Infusions.”
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 7 of 23 PageID# 7
`
`31.
`
`Additionally, Defendant’s Williamsburg brewery produces the following brands of
`
`alcoholic beverages: Budweiser, Bud Light, Bud Light Lime, Bud Light Orange, Bud Light
`
`Lemonade, Bud Light Platinum, Bud Select, Select 55, Land Shark Lager, Bud Ice, Michelob,
`
`Michelob Light, Amberbock, Michelob ULTRA, Michelob ULTRA Lime Cactus, Michelob
`
`ULTRA Prickly Pear, Michelob Ultra Pomegranate, Goose Island Natural Villain, St. Pauli Girl
`
`Lager, Devil’s Backbone Vienna Lager, Natural Light, Natural Ice, Busch, Busch Light, Busch
`
`Ice, Becks, Becks Light, Kirin Ichiban, Kirin Light, King Cobra, Hurricane Malt Liquor, and
`
`Hurricane High Gravity.
`
`32.
`
`Named Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant in Defendant’s Williamsburg
`
`brewery.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant employed and
`
`continues to employ at least 350 non-exempt individuals in the Williamsburg brewery.
`
`34.
`
`Named Plaintiff Glennon’s job duties as an operator included driving a fork truck,
`
`loading and unloading trailers, among other tasks.
`
`35.
`
`Named Plaintiff Overby’s job duties as a maintenance technician include fulfilling
`
`corrective, preventive, and emergency maintenance work orders, writing work orders, closing
`
`work orders, attending various administrative meetings, among other tasks.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant compensates operators, technicians, engineers, or similar positions, on
`
`an hourly basis. Defendant classifies these employees as non-exempt under the FLSA.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant requires operators, technicians, engineers, or similar positions to work
`
`approximately eight (8) hour shifts, five (5) days per week. There are typically three shifts that
`
`Plaintiffs are assigned – first, second, or third shift.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 8 of 23 PageID# 8
`
`38.
`
`In order to record the time worked of their employees, including Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant utilizes an electronic timekeeping system to capture employees’ time. However, this
`
`timekeeping system does not properly capture pre-shift work that Plaintiffs perform outside of the
`
`Williamsburg brewery.
`
`39.
`
`Prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and during the
`
`relevant time period, Defendant required Plaintiffs to arrive to work at approximately twenty (20)
`
`minutes prior to the start of their scheduled shifts to perform a litany of unpaid tasks, including
`
`traveling to the locker area; putting on and equipping various items of Personal Protective
`
`Equipment (“PPE”), such as safety shoes, safety gloves, safety glasses, earplugs, etc.; travel to
`
`Plaintiffs’ designated work area; and participate in a “carryover” with the previous shift, where the
`
`previous shift would give a verbal debrief to the next shift.
`
`40.
`
`After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and in addition to the
`
`pre-shift work detailed above, Plaintiffs had to perform approximately thirty (30) minutes of
`
`unpaid pre-shift work, including waiting in line, either in Plaintiffs’ cars or in an in-person queue,
`
`for a required temperature check to screen for illness; go through a “foot bath” to disinfect
`
`Plaintiffs’ shoes and feet; disinfect Plaintiffs’ hands by washing them; and disinfect Plaintiffs’
`
`work area and equipment.
`
`41. While Plaintiffs clock in after entering the Williamsburg brewery, Defendant does
`
`not compensate Plaintiffs from the time they clock in. Instead, Defendant only compensates
`
`Plaintiffs for their scheduled shift time and does not account nor compensate for any pre-shift work
`
`completed by Plaintiffs. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ time spent fulfilling pre-shift duties outside of
`
`the Williamsburg brewery is not properly captured or compensated, such as engaging in required
`
`temperature checks.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 9 of 23 PageID# 9
`
`42.
`
`During the relevant period, Plaintiffs typically perform approximately fifteen (15)
`
`minutes of post-shift work each workday, including finishing assigned work; conducting the
`
`“carryover” for the next shift; putting tools and equipment in storage; taking off PPE; washing
`
`body of foreign substances acquired during shift, including glass, dust, beer, lubricants, chemical
`
`residue, etc.; and numerous other tasks to properly wind down Plaintiffs’ shifts. Because these
`
`duties must be performed after Plaintiffs’ scheduled shift end time, and because Defendant only
`
`compensates Plaintiffs for their scheduled shift time, Plaintiffs’ time engaged in such post-shift
`
`activities is not compensated, despite Plaintiffs clocking out and recording their time at the time
`
`they finish their post-shift work.
`
`43.
`
`This required, pre- and/or post-shift work has to be performed before the “start” of
`
`each shift and following the “end” of each shift. The pre-shift work is necessary in order for
`
`Plaintiffs to fulfil their job duties while on job sites. Additionally, the post-shift work is necessary
`
`to adequately wind down Plaintiffs’ work for the day, fulfill Plaintiffs’ duties, and to protect
`
`Defendant’s equipment and property.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant, through its actions, directives, and policies, mandated that Plaintiffs
`
`perform this pre- and/or post-shift work.
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant strikes Plaintiffs’ time they manage to
`
`record engaging in any pre- and/or post-shift work.
`
`46.
`
`If Plaintiffs do not perform this pre- and/or post-shift work, they risk receiving
`
`verbal and written warnings on their records. Multiple verbal and written warnings could result in
`
`disciplinary action or termination from employment.
`
`47.
`
`If Plaintiffs arrived immediately prior to the scheduled start of their first job, they
`
`could not feasibly perform all required pre-shift work necessary to perform their job duties when
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 10 of 23 PageID# 10
`
`the first scheduled job begins, and they would therefore receive verbal or written warnings for
`
`failing to perform all required pre-shift work.
`
`48.
`
`Defendants’ failure to compensate for all pre-and/or post-shift work performed has
`
`affected all Plaintiffs similarly.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have complained numerous times to
`
`Defendant regarding their unpaid pre- and/or post-shift work, but Defendant has persisted in its
`
`practice and policy of not compensating for this time.
`
`FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`50.
`
`Named Plaintiffs bring the First Cause of Action of the instant Complaint as a
`
`collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
`
`employees.
`
`51. Members of the FLSA class are similarly situated.
`
`52. Members of the FLSA class have substantially similar job requirements and pay
`
`provisions, and are subject to common practices, policies, or plans that fail to compensate them
`
`for all work performed.
`
`53.
`
`There are numerous (in excess of 250) similarly situated current and former
`
`operators, technicians, engineers, or similar positions that fall within the scope of the
`
`aforementioned FLSA class.
`
`54.
`
`These similarly situated employees are known to Defendant, are readily
`
`identifiable, and can be located through Defendant’s records. Members of the proposed FLSA
`
`class, therefore, should be permitted to pursue their claims collectively, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
`
`216(b).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 11 of 23 PageID# 11
`
`55.
`
`Pursuit of this action collectively will provide the most efficient mechanism for
`
`adjudicating the claims of Plaintiffs.
`
`56.
`
`Named Plaintiffs consent in writing to assert their claims for unpaid wages under
`
`the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Named Plaintiffs signed consent forms are filed with
`
`the Court as Exhibits A and B to this Complaint. As this case proceeds, it is likely other individuals
`
`will file consent forms and join as opt-in plaintiffs.
`
`57.
`
`Named Plaintiffs request that they be permitted to serve as representatives of those
`
`who consent to participate in this action, and that this action be conditionally certified as a
`
`collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`RULE 23 VMWA AND VWPA CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`Named Plaintiffs bring the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action of the
`
`58.
`
`instant Complaint as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, for relief to redress and
`
`remedy Defendant’s violations of the VMWA and VWPA, Virginia Code §§ 40.1-28.8 et seq., and
`
`40.1-29 et seq.
`
`59.
`
`Named Plaintiffs bring their state law counts for violations of the VMWA and
`
`VWPA as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, for relief to redress and remedy
`
`Defendant’s violations of the VMWA and VWPA and failure to pay all wages due and owing
`
`pursuant to Defendant’s written employment contract and/or compensation plan and/or
`
`Defendant’s failure to pay full reasonable consideration for all compensable work duties
`
`performed for Defendant’s benefit.
`
`60.
`
`Pursuit of this action as a class will provide the most efficient mechanism for
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 12 of 23 PageID# 12
`
`adjudicating the claims of Named Plaintiffs and the putative Class Plaintiffs.
`
`61.
`
`Named Plaintiffs reserve the right to establish Subclasses, or modify any Class or
`
`Subclass definition, as appropriate.
`
`62. Members of the Class and/or any Subclasses will be collectively referred to as
`
`“class members.” Named Plaintiffs reserve the right to re-define the Class and add additional
`
`Subclasses as appropriate based on investigation, discovery, and specific theories of liability.
`
`63.
`
`Common Questions Predominate: There is a well-defined commonality of interest
`
`in the questions of law and fact involving and affecting the proposed class, and these common
`
`questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting members of the proposed class
`
`individually, in that all putative class members have been harmed by Defendant’s failure to
`
`lawfully compensate them. The common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to,
`
`the following:
`
`(a) Whether pre- and/or post-shift work performed by putative Class Members
`
`is compensable under the VMWA and/or VWPA;
`
`(b) Whether Defendants’ failure to compensate putative Class Members for
`
`pre- and/or post-shift work is in violation of the VMWA and/or VWPA;
`
`(c) Whether Defendants failed to compensate putative Class Members at the
`
`earned, accrued, and/or promised rate for all hours worked in excess of forty
`
`(40) each week;
`
`(d) Whether Defendant failed to compensate putative Class Members for all of
`
`their earned, accrued, and/or promised wages, including, but not limited to,
`
`straight time and overtime on their regular pay date, in violation of the
`
`VMWA and/or VWPA;
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 13 of 23 PageID# 13
`
`(e) Whether Defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to
`
`Plaintiffs and class members; and
`
`(g) Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful, reckless, or was done knowingly.
`
`62.
`
`There is a well-defined community of interest in this litigation and the proposed
`
`Class is readily ascertainable:
`
`(a)
`
`Numerosity: The proposed class is so numerous that the joinder of all such
`
`persons is impracticable, and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties
`
`and the Court. While the exact number of class members is unknown to Named Plaintiffs
`
`at this time, upon information and belief, the class comprises at least 350 individuals. The
`
`identities of the Class Members are readily ascertainable by inspection of Defendant’s
`
`employment and payroll records.
`
`(b)
`
`Typicality: The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims
`
`which could be alleged by any member of the putative Class, and the relief sought is typical
`
`of the relief which would be sought by each member of the Class in separate actions. All
`
`putative Class Members were subject to the same compensation practices of Defendant, as
`
`alleged herein, of failing to pay employees for all pre- and/or post-shift work. Defendant’s
`
`compensation policies and practices affected all putative Class Members similarly, and
`
`Defendant benefited from the same type of unfair and/or unlawful acts as to each putative
`
`Class Member. Named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class sustained similar
`
`losses, injuries, and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices, and
`
`procedures.
`
`(c)
`
`Adequacy of Representation: Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately
`
`represent and protect the interests of all members of the Class because it is in their best
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 14 of 23 PageID# 14
`
`interest to prosecute the claims alleged herein to obtain full compensation and penalties
`
`due them and the Class. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, as proposed class counsel, are competent and
`
`experienced in litigating large employment class actions and versed in the rules governing
`
`class action discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiffs have incurred, and
`
`throughout the duration of this action, will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs that
`
`have been and will be necessarily expended for the prosecution of this action for the
`
`substantial benefit of each class member.
`
`(d)
`
`Superiority: A class action is superior to other available means for the fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all class members is
`
`impracticable. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated
`
`persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently,
`
`and without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual
`
`actions engender. Because the losses, injuries and damages suffered by each of the
`
`individual class members may be small for some in the sense pertinent to the class action
`
`analysis, the expenses and burden of individual litigation would make it extremely difficult
`
`or impossible for the individual class members to redress the wrongs done to them. On the
`
`other hand, important public interests will be served by addressing the matter as a class
`
`action. The cost to the court system and the public for the adjudication of individual
`
`litigation and claims would be substantially greater than if the claims are treated as a class
`
`action. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the proposed class would
`
`create a risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications with respect to the individual
`
`members of the class, establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant, and
`
`resulting in the impairment of class members’ rights and the disposition of their interests
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 15 of 23 PageID# 15
`
`through actions to which they are not parties. The issue in this action can be decided by
`
`means of common, class-wide proof. In addition, if appropriate, the Court can and is
`
`empowered to fashion methods to efficiently manage this action as a class action.
`
`63.
`
`Public Policy Considerations: Employers in the Commonwealth of Virginia violate
`
`employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out
`
`of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing actions because
`
`they believe their former employers might damage their future endeavors through negative
`
`references and/or other means. Class actions provide the class members who are not named in the
`
`complaint with a type of anonymity that allows for the vindication of their rights at the same time
`
`as affording them privacy protections.
`
`64.
`
`Pursuit of this action as a class will provide the most efficient mechanism for
`
`adjudicating the claims of Named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
`29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.
`Brought by Named Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and all Similarly Situated Employees
`
`Named Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs
`
`65.
`
`above as though fully set forth herein.
`
`66.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an “employer”
`
`engaged in interstate “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for “commerce,” within the
`
`meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.
`
`67.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant has employed, and continues to employ,
`
`“employee[s],” including Plaintiffs, and each of the members of the prospective FLSA Class, that
`
`have been, and continue to be, engaged in interstate “commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA,
`
`29 U.S.C. § 203.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 16 of 23 PageID# 16
`
`68.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant has had gross operating revenues in excess of
`
`$500,000.
`
`69.
`
`The FLSA, pursuant to §§ 206 and 207, requires each covered employer, including
`
`Defendant, to compensate all non-exempt employees at a rate of not less than one and one-half
`
`(1.5) times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of forty (40) hours in a single
`
`workweek.
`
`70.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant, pursuant to its policies and practices, failed and
`
`refused to pay for all hours worked to Plaintiffs, including for required, pre- and/or post-shift work
`
`performed by Plaintiffs.
`
`71.
`
`Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked, despite the fact that, upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant knew of its obligations under the law, entitles Plaintiffs to
`
`liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),
`
`since Defendant cannot show it acted in good faith, and a three (3) year, rather than two (2) year
`
`statute of limitations, since Defendant’s acts constitute willful violations of the FLSA, within the
`
`meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a)
`
`72.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, Plaintiffs have been deprived of
`
`compensation for all required pre- and/or post-shift hours worked, and are entitled to recovery of
`
`such amounts, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant
`
`to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of the Virginia Minimum Wage Act
`Virginia Code § 40.1-28.8 et seq.
`Brought by Named Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and all Similarly Situated Employees
`
`Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs above as
`
`73.
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 17 of 23 PageID# 17
`
`74.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant has employed, and/or continues to employ,
`
`Plaintiffs within the meaning of the VMWA.
`
`75.
`
`Defendants employed Named Plaintiffs, and similarly situated employees, within
`
`the Commonwealth of Virginia.
`
`76.
`
`Virginia Code § 40.1-28.8 et seq. provides that, prior to May 1, 2021, every
`
`employer shall pay to each of its employees’ wages at a rate not less than the federal minimum
`
`wage and the payment of a lesser wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful.
`
`77.
`
`Virginia Code § 40.1-28.8 et seq. also provides that “[f]rom May 1, 2021, until
`
`January 1, 2022, every employer shall pay to each of its employees’ wages at a rate not less than
`
`the greater of (i) $9.50 per hour or (ii) the federal minimum wage.”
`
`78.
`
`During the relevant time period, Defendant paid Plaintiffs and class members less
`
`than minimum wages when they did not pay Plaintiffs and class members for all hours worked.
`
`For example, whenever Plaintiffs performed pre- and/or post-shift work, Defendant did not pay
`
`them at all for the time they spent working. To the extent these hours do not qualify for the payment
`
`of overtime, Plaintiffs and class members were not being paid at least minimum wages for their
`
`work.
`
`79.
`
`During the relevant time period, Defendant regularly failed to pay at least minimum
`
`wages to Named Plaintiffs and class members for all hours worked pursuant to Virginia Code §
`
`40.1-28.10.
`
`80.
`
`Defendants’ failure to pay Named Plaintiffs and class members the required
`
`minimum wages violate Virginia Code § 40.1-28.10. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 40.1-29, Named
`
`Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to recover the unpaid balance of their minimum wage
`
`compensation as well as interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00141 Document 1 Filed 11/05/21 Page 18 of 23 PageID# 18
`
`81.
`
`Pursuant to Vi