(Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of All  Similarly Situated Employees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216)   (Rule 23 Claim)    Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former employees in the asserted  class regularly worked over 40 hours per week and earned the additional $1.25 per hour shift  differential.     At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant failed to comply with the FLSA  in that Plaintiff and those similarly situated to Plaintiff performed services for Defendant for  which no provision was made by Defendant to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons the  correct overtime rate of pay.    Plaintiff and asserted members of the collective are similarly situated because, inter  alia, they were all were not paid the required overtime rate but were entitled under the FLSA to  the paid overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all work in excess of  40 hours per week; and had such rights undermined and neglected by Defendants’ unlawful prac- tices and policies.    Defendant encouraged, permitted, and required the Class to work without required  overtime compensation of one and one-half times the normal wages.    Defendant knows that Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Class have been  deprived of required overtime compensation.  Nonetheless, Defendant has operated under a  scheme to deny the Plaintiff and the Class required compensation of one and one-half time regular  rate of pay for work in excess of 40 hours of the FLSA Class.    Defendant’s conduct, as alleged herein, was willful and has caused significant dam- age to Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA class.    Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each proposed class mem- ber and have retained counsel that is experienced in class/collective actions and employment lit- igation. Plaintiff has no interest that is contrary to, or in conflict with, members of the collective.   The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 32, as if fully set  forth herein.    At all relevant times, RCI employed and/or continued to employ Plaintiff and each  member of the proposed class of hourly employees within the meaning of the FLSA.    Defendant has a policy and practice of not paying the proper overtime rate.    Under the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Class (hereinafter referred to as “The FLSA  Class”) were entitled to be paid at the overtime rate by Defendants for each hour worked in excess  of 40 hours each work week.    The overtime rate is computed by multiplying 1.5 times an employee’s regular  hourly rate, which includes all non-discretionary compensation paid to employees, including any  shift differential.    Upon information and belief, Defendant’s practices were not based upon Defend- ant’s review of any policy or publication of the United States Department of Labor and therefore  were willful and deliberate.    The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §255(a).    Due to Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff alleges on behalf of the mem- bers of the proposed class that they have suffered damages and are entitled to recover damages  from Defendant.  WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests the following relief, individually and on behalf of  similarly situated employees:   a.)  A declaratory judgment that Defendant violated the overtime wage provisions of  the FLSA as to the Plaintiff and the Class;  b.)  A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s violations were willful;  c.)  A judgment of unpaid overtime compensation;  b.)  A judgement of an additional equal amount as liquidated damages;  c.)  Prejudgment interest; and  d.)  Reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to  29 U.S.C. §216(b).   This count arises from Defendants’ violation of the overtime compensation provi- sions of the IMWL, 820 ILCS § 105/1 et seq.     Under the IMWL, Defendants were and remain obligated to compensate Plaintiff  for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any individual work week.  Overtime compensation  must be paid at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay, which  includes the shift differential.    Plaintiff was regularly permitted, encouraged and/or required to work in excess of  40 hours per week but was not compensated at the required one and one-half times regular hourly  rate for such overtime work.    By failing to pay overtime compensation due to Plaintiff, Defendants willfully,  knowingly and/or recklessly violated the IMWL which requires overtime compensation of one  and one-half times normal rate to be paid.    As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice of withholding overtime compensa- tion, Plaintiff has been damaged in that he has not received wages due to him pursuant to the 