(FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938)   (NEW JERSEY WAGE AND HOUR LAW)   (NEW JERSEY WAGE PAYMENT LAW)    Plaintiff and all Collective Group/Class Members have been employed by  Defendant and worked as Laborers and/or Operators out of Defendant’s office/facility in the State  of New Jersey.    Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Group/Class Members for  their time spent traveling to and from Defendant’s office/facility to customer locations and  performing physical tasks after beginning their work day as required by the FLSA and NJWHL.    At the Defendant’s office/facility, Plaintiff and the Collective Group/Class  Members were required to pick-up the keys to their work vehicles, load their work vehicles with  the equipment needed for the day’s work and, at times, repair equipment that needed to be so  repaired.       At the end of the workday, unless they were staying overnight at local lodging, the  Plaintiff and the Collective Group/Class Members were required to return back to the Defendant’s  office/facility and turn-in the keys to their work vehicles and, at times, unload the equipment from  their work vehicles.    Defendant took unlawful deductions from Plaintiff and the Collective  Groups’/Class Members’ pay in violation of the NJWPL in the form of charging them “company  benefit costs” which were costs for gloves, ear plugs, Tyvek suits and other similar items that were  required to perform work for the Defendant.    Defendant’s failure to pay the Collective Group/Class Members for all time  worked, including time spent traveling for Defendant’s purposes to and from its offices, to and  from the customer locations resulted in the Collective Group/Class Members being denied legally  required compensation.    When factoring in the additional hours described above, Defendant also failed to  pay Plaintiff and the Collective Group/Class Members 1.5 times their hourly rate for all hours they  worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week as required by the NJWHL.    Defendant’s unlawful deductions from the Collective Groups’/Class Members’ pay  denied them compensation to which they were legally entitled to receive.    Plaintiff brings count one set forth below as a collective action pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of himself and all other individuals who, any time after April 2015,  worked as Laborers and/or Operators out of the Defendant’s New Jersey office/facility.    Plaintiff and all individuals who, any time after April 2015, worked as Laborers  and/or Operators out of the Defendant’s New Jersey office/facility are similarly situated in that  they have all been subject to the Defendant’s common wage payment practices.    Upon information and belief, Defendant knew that the Plaintiff and all similarly  situated individuals performed work that required payment.    As a result, Defendant’s conduct was willful.    Count one of this Complaint for violations of the FLSA may be brought and  maintained as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) because the Plaintiff’s  claim is similar to the claims of all Laborers and/or Operators who worked out of the Defendant’s  New Jersey office/facility.    Defendant is liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and  Collective Group members, and notice of this lawsuit should be sent to them. Those similarly  situated individuals are known to the Defendant and are readily identifiable through Defendant’s  payroll records.   Class action treatment is appropriate because, as summarized in Paragraphs 28-34  below, all of Rule 23’s requirements are satisfied.    The class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.    Plaintiff is a Class Member, his claims are typical of the claims of other Class  Members and he has no interests that are antagonistic to or in conflict with the interests of other  Class Members.    Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Class Members and their interests,  and he has retained competent and experienced counsel who will effectively represent the Class  Members’ interests.    Questions of law and fact are common to all Class Members.    A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation.         The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would run  the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications. Prosecution as a class action will also eliminate  the possibility of repetitious litigation.   Plaintiff reasserts Paragraphs 1-34 as if set forth at length herein.    Defendant’s conduct against Plaintiff and the Collective Group Members violates  the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 to 219.    As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Collective Group  Members have endured significant economic damages.     Plaintiff reasserts Paragraphs 1-37 as if set forth at length herein.    Defendant’s conduct against Plaintiff and the Class Members violates the New  Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a to -56a38.    As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class Members have  endured significant economic damages.     Defendant’s conduct against Plaintiff and the Class Members violates the New  Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -4.14, by reducing the payments made to  Plaintiff and the Class Members to account for various deductions, charges and/or expenses that  do not benefit Plaintiff or other Class Members.     As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class Members have  endured significant economic damages.   