 Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff seeks to prosecute his FLSA claims as a  collective action on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly employed by Defendants as  3  ASMs at any time from three years from December 15, 2013, to the entry of judgment in this  case (the “Collective Action Period”) (collectively, the “Collective Action Members”).    Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly  compensate Plaintiff and other ASMs.    There are many similarly-situated current and former ASMs 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 Collective Action Members pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).    The similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, are readily- identifiable and can be located through Defendants’ records.   Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members as ASMs.    Defendants independently or jointly maintained control, oversight, and discretion  over the operation of all of its restaurants, including its employment practices with respect to the  ASMs.    Plaintiff’s and the ASMs’ work was performed in the normal course of  Defendants’ business and was integrated into it.    Consistent with the Defendants’ policy, pattern and/or practice, Plaintiff and  ASMs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime  wages, in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff worked an average of 55 hours per workweek.  Plaintiff sometimes worked 65-75 hours per workweek.    All of the work that the ASMs performed was assigned by Defendants, and/or  Defendants are aware of all of the work that they have performed.   4    The work that ASMs performed as part of their primary duty required little skill  and no capital investment.    The work that ASMs performed as part of their primary duty did not include  managerial responsibilities or the exercise of meaningful independent judgment and discretion.    Regardless of the store at which they worked, ASMs’ primary job duties included:  a.  preparing food;  b.  helping customers;  c.  bussing tables;  d.  cleaning the restaurant;  e.  checking to make sure that supplies were properly shelved; and  f.  checking inventory.    Regardless of the store at which they worked, ASMs’ primary job duties did not  include:  a.  hiring;  b.  firing;  c.  disciplining other employees;  d.  scheduling;  e.  supervising and delegating; or  f.  exercising meaningful independent judgment and discretion.     ASMs’ primary duties were manual in nature.  The performance of manual labor  duties occupied the majority of their working hours.    Pursuant to a centralized, company-wide policy, pattern and/or practice,  Defendants have classified all ASMs as exempt from coverage of the overtime provisions of the   At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continue to be, employers  engaged in interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce, within the  meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).    At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiff, and employed or continues  to employ each of the Collective Action Members, within the meaning of the FLSA.    Defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the  FLSA, as detailed in Collective Action Complaint.    Plaintiff consented in writing to be a party to this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  7  § 216(b).    The overtime wage provisions set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., apply to  Defendants.    At all relevant times and continuing to the present time, Defendants had a policy  and practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation to its ASMs and similarly-situated  employees in comparable positions but holding different titles, for hours worked in excess of 40  hours per workweek.    As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to compensate its employees, including  Plaintiff and the Collective Action members, at a rate not less than one and one-half times the  regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, Defendants have  violated and continue to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C.  §§ 207(a)(1) and 215(a).    As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to record, report, credit and/or  compensate its employees, including Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members, Defendants  have failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to each of its employees sufficient  to determine the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in violation of  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(c) and 215(a).    As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice of minimizing labor costs by  underfunding the labor budgets for its restaurants, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded  the fact that Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members were primarily performing manual  labor and non-exempt tasks.    Due to Defendants’ failure to provide enough labor budget funds, failure to take  into account the impact of the underfunded labor budgets on the job duties of Plaintiff and the  8  Collective Action Members, Defendants’ actual knowledge through its managerial  employees/agents that the primary duties of the Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members  was manual labor and included other non-exempt tasks, Defendants’ failure to perform a  person-by-person analysis of Plaintiff’s and the Collective Action Members’ job duties to  ensure that they were performing exempt job duties, Defendants’ instituting a policy and  practice that did not allow Plaintiff and Collective Action Members to record all hours worked,  and Defendants’ failure to post or keep posted a notice explaining the minimum wage and  overtime wage requirements, Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard that its  conduct was prohibited by the FLSA.  29 U.S.C. § 255(a).    As a result of Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the  Collective Action Members, is entitled (a) to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime wages,  (b) to recover an additional, equal amount as liquidated damages for Defendants’ willful  violations of the FLSA, and (c) to recover their unreasonably delayed payment of wages,  reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b).    Because Defendants’ violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year  statute of limitations applies pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.  Fair Labor Standard Act – Unpaid Overtime Wages  On Behalf of Plaintiff PATRICK COYNE and the FLSA Collective  