1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK

Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)

2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
4 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
5 Firmsite: www.bamlawca.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
12
13 JILL FREDRICKSON; an individual, on CASE No.
14 behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
15 (1) UNFAIR COMPETITION IN
16 Plaintiff, VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.;
17 vs. (2) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB.
18 STYLES FOR LESS, INC., a California CODE §§ 204, 210, 218, 510, 1194 &
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, 1198;
19 (3) FAILURE TO PROVIDE
ACCURATE ITEMIZED STATEMENTS
20 Defendant. IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
§ 226; and,
21 (4) FAILURE TO REIMBURSE
EMPLOYEES FOR REQUIRED
22 EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
LAB. CODE § 2802.
23 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
24
25
26
27
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 1 Plaintiff Jill Fredrickson ("PLAINTIFF"), an individual, alleges upon information and
2 belief, except for her own acts and knowledge, the following:
3
4 NATURE OF THE ACTION
5 1. Defendant Styles for Less, Inc. hereinafter also referred to as "STYLES FOR
6 LESS" or "DEFENDANT" operates a chain of specialty junior and women’s retail clothing
7 stores and an Internet website which sell a wide range of apparel and accessories throughout
8 California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida. The company offers clothes for school, athletic,
9 career, and casual wear as well as accessories, including jewelry, sun glasses, belts, hats,
10 scarves, handbags, shoes and boots. To maintain superior operations management at retail
11 stores throughout California, STYLES FOR LESS retains "Store Managers", and "Assistant
12 Store Managers" collectively referred to herein as "Managers" who are responsible for and
13 required to manage the day-to-day operations of the retail stores and are classified as non-
14 exempt employees. During the CLASS PERIOD, STYLES FOR LESS failed to record and pay
15 PLAINTIFF Jill Fredrickson "PLAINTIFF" and all the other Class Members for the actual
16 numbers of hours worked, including straight time, reporting time and overtime with respect to
17 time worked off the clock, and reporting to a STYLES FOR LESS location. STYLES FOR
18 LESS intentionally and unlawfully failed to pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for
19 compensable off the clock work time which was spent printing time, attendance, and closing
20 reports, setting alarm codes, and waiting for and undergoing "bag checks," or internal theft
21 prevention inspections at the end of their shifts. The Managers were required to engage in this
22 off the clock work because it was part of their principal job duties of managing the stores’
23 operations. In addition, these employees were required to report to a STYLES FOR LESS
24 location for work on their "day off" or to cover for another Manager who could not attend their
25 shift. STYLES FOR LESS furnished these employees less than half their usual or scheduled
26 day’s work but failed to properly compensate the employees for at least one-half of their usual
27 or scheduled day’s work in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Industrial
28 Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order. STYLES FOR LESS also engaged in a common

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-1-
 1 course of failing to reimburse the PLAINTIFF and all the Class Members for clothing and other
2 business-related expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties for DEFENDANT’s benefit.
3 STYLES FOR LESS systematically insisted that all Managers purchase STYLE FOR LESS’s
4 merchandise from its retail stores the wearing of which was necessary to fulfill the employees’
5 job duties. DEFENDANT’s clothing was purchased for wearing at work for DEFENDANT.
6 As a result, the Managers patronized the DEFENDANT’s merchandise in the purchase of the
7 clothing from its retail stores for work purposes only. STYLES FOR LESS’s uniform policy
8 and practice to not pay employees for time worked off the clock, reporting to a company
9 location for work, and its business expense policy is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business
10 records.
11 2. PLAINTIFF brings this Action against STYLES FOR LESS on behalf of
12 herself and on behalf of a class consisting of all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for
13 STYLES FOR LESS as a Manager in California during the CLASS PERIOD ("CLASS" or
14 "Class Members"). Plaintiff brings this Class Action to fully compensate the Class Members
15 for their losses incurred during the CLASS PERIOD caused by STYLES FOR LESS’s uniform
16 policy and practice which fails to compensate the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, for all
17 hours worked. STYLES FOR LESS’s uniform policy and practice alleged herein is an unfair,
18 deceptive and unlawful practice whereby STYLES FOR LESS retained and continues to retain
19 wages due PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, for all hours worked. PLAINTIFF, and the
20 Class Members, seek an injunction enjoining such conduct by STYLES FOR LESS in the
21 future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and all Class Members who have been economically
22 injured by DEFENDANT's past and current unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal
23 and equitable relief.
24
25 THE PARTIES
26 3. Defendant Styles for Less, Inc. ("STYLES FOR LESS" or "DEFENDANT")
27 was founded in 1992 and is based and headquartered in Santa Fe Springs, California. At all
28 relevant times mentioned herein, STYLES FOR LESS conducted and continues to conduct

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-2-
 1 substantial and regular business throughout California.
2 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
3 partnership, associate or otherwise of DEFENDANT Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are
4 presently unknown to the PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious
5 names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this
6 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when
7 they are ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information
8 and belief alleges, that the defendants named in this Complaint, including Does 1 through
9 50, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings
10 that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
11 5. The agents, servants, and/or employees of DEFENDANT and each of them
12 acting on behalf of the DEFENDANT acted within the course and scope of his, her or its
13 authority as the agent, servant, and/or employee of DEFENDANT, and personally
14 participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of DEFENDANT with respect to the
15 conduct alleged herein. Consequently, DEFENDANT is jointly and severally liable to the
16 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate
17 result of the conduct of the DEFENDANT’s agents, servants, and/or employees.
18 6. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Jill Fredrickson
19 "PLAINTIFF" resided in California. PLAINTIFF was employed by STYLES FOR LESS in
20 California as a "Store Manager" from April 2010 to October 2010. At all relevant times
21 mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF primarily performed the job duty of managing the day-to-day
22 operations of the retail stores.
23
24 THE CLASS & CONDUCT
25 7. PLAINTIFF brings this Action against STYLES FOR LESS pursuant to
26 California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a
27 class consisting of all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for STYLES FOR LESS
28 as a Manager in California during the CLASS PERIOD ("CLASS" or "Class Members").

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-3-
 1 The applicable "CLASS PERIOD" is defined as the period beginning on the date four (4)
2 years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on a date as determined by the Court.
3 8. During the CLASS PERIOD, STYLES FOR LESS systematically failed to
4 pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for compensable work time which was spent
5 printing time, attendance, and closing reports, setting alarm codes, and waiting for and
6 undergoing "bag checks," or internal theft prevention inspections at the end of their shifts.
7 The Managers were required to engage in this off the clock work because it was part of their
8 principal job duties of managing the stores’ operations. Furthermore, these employees were
9 required to report to a STYLES FOR LESS location for work on their "day off" or to cover
10 for another Manager who could not attend their shift. STYLES FOR LESS furnished these
11 employees less than half their usual or scheduled day’s work but failed to properly
12 compensate the employees for at least one-half of their usual or scheduled day’s work. In
13 addition, DEFENDANT failed to reimburse the PLAINTIFF and all the Class Members for
14 clothing expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties for DEFENDANT’s benefit.
15 STYLES FOR LESS systematically insisted that all Managers purchase STYLE FOR
16 LESS’s merchandise from its retail stores the wearing of which was necessary to fulfill the
17 employees’ job duties. DEFENDANT’s clothing was purchased for wearing at work for
18 DEFENDANT. As a result, the Managers patronized the DEFENDANT’s merchandise in
19 the purchase of the clothing from its retail stores for work purposes only. The PLAINTIFF
20 and the Class Members therefore worked off the clock, reported to a STYLES FOR LESS
21 location for work, and incurred clothing expenses without receiving compensation for such
22 compelled work time and expenses for DEFENDANT’s benefit in accordance with
23 DEFENDANT’s strict, corporate and uniform guidelines.
24 9. Throughout the CLASS PERIOD, in violation of the applicable sections of the
25 California Labor Code and the requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
26 Wage Order, STYLES FOR LESS as a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure,
27 intentionally, knowingly and systematically failed to properly compensate the PLAINTIFF
28 and the Class Members for all hours worked, by failing to pay the Class Members for

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-4-
 1 compensable off the clock work time which was spent printing time, attendance, and closing
2 reports, setting alarm codes, and waiting for and undergoing "bag checks." In addition,
3 STYLES FOR LESS failed to properly compensate the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members
4 for reporting to a STYLES FOR LESS location for work because the employees worked less
5 than half of their usual or scheduled day’s work. STYLES FOR LESS also failed to
6 reimburse the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for clothing expenses incurred in the
7 discharge of their job duties for DEFENDANT’s benefit. These uniform policies and
8 systematic practices of STYLES FOR LESS were intended to purposefully avoid the
9 payment of wages required by California law which allows STYLES FOR LESS to illegally
10 profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors. To the extent equitable tolling
11 operates to toll claims by the CLASS against STYLES FOR LESS, the CLASS PERIOD
12 should be adjusted accordingly.
13 10. All non-exempt, hourly employees working for STYLES FOR LESS as a
14 Manager in California are similarly situated in that they are all subject to STYLES FOR LESS’s
15 uniform policy and systematic practice that requires them to perform work without
16 compensation as required by law.
17 11. STYLES FOR LESS has a uniform policy and practice in California of
18 requiring employees to work off the clock at the end of their shifts without compensating them
19 for the time worked as part of their principal job duties of managing the stores’ operations.
20 STYLES FOR LESS also required these employees to report to a STYLES FOR LESS location
21 for work but fails to properly compensate them for reporting to work on their "day off" or to
22 cover for another Manager who could not attend their shift. This systematic and company-wide
23 policy originating at the corporate level is the cause of the illegal pay practices as described
24 herein. Throughout the CLASS PERIOD, STYLES FOR LESS failed to pay the PLAINTIFF
25 and the Class Members for all hours worked with respect to compensable off the clock work
26 time and reporting to a STYLES FOR LESS location for work. STYLES FOR LESS’s business
27 demands that the Class Members invest additional time after clocking out at the end of their
28 shifts because STYLES FOR LESS requires these employees to properly close the retail stores.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-5-
 1 Consequently, these employees are engaged in their principal job duties of managing the stores’
2 operations after clocking out in accordance with DEFENDANT’s strict, uniform and corporate
3 guidelines. DEFENDANT failed to compensate the Class Members for this compulsory work
4 time at their regular rate of pay and at the overtime rate of time and a half when applicable. In
5 addition, STYLES FOR LESS failed to pay the Class Members premium pay for requiring them
6 to report to a STYLES FOR LESS location for work on their "day off" or to cover for another
7 Manager who could not attend their shift.
8 12. During the CLASS PERIOD, STYLES FOR LESS uniformly violated the
9 rights of the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members under California law, without limitation, in
10 the following manners:
11 (a) Violating California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010(7) and
12 11040(7) by failing compensate the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members
13 for all hours worked, including straight time, reporting time and overtime;
14 (b) Violating California Labor Code Sections 204, 510 and 1198, by failing
15 to pay premium wages for hours worked in excess eight (8) in any
16 workday and forty (40) in any workweek;
17 (c) Violating California Labor Code Section 2802, by failing to provide the
18 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members with reimbursement of expenses
19 incurred in the discharge of their job duties for DEFENDANT’s benefit;
20 (d) Violating California Labor Code Section 226, by failing to provide the
21 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members with accurate itemized wage
22 statements;
23 (e) Violating California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202, by failing to
24 tender full payment and/or restitution of wages owed to the employees
25 whose employment with DEFENDANT has terminated; and,
26 (f) Violating Business & Processions Code Section 17200, et seq., by
27 committing acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Labor
28 Code and public policy, by failing to pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-6-
 1 Members wages for all hours worked, including hours worked off the
2 clock at the end of their shifts and reporting to a STYLES FOR LESS
3 location for work.
4 13. As a result of STYLES FOR LESS’s uniform policies, practices and
5 procedures, there are numerous questions of law and fact common to all Class Members who
6 worked for STYLES FOR LESS in California during the CLASS PERIOD. These questions
7 include, but are not limited to, the following:
8 (a) Whether STYLES FOR LESS’s policies, practices and pattern of conduct
9 described in this Complaint was and is unlawful;
10 (b) Whether STYLES FOR LESS failed to accurately pay the PLAINTIFF
11 and the Class Members for all hours worked, including straight time,
12 reporting time and overtime;
13 (c) Whether STYLES FOR LESS failed to consider off the clock work as
14 "hours worked" without compensation;
15 (d) Whether STYLES FOR LESS failed to maintain true and accurate time
16 records for all hours worked by its Managers;
17 (e) Whether STYLES FOR LESS failed to indemnify its Managers for all
18 necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties for
19 DEFENDANT’s benefit;
20 (f) Whether STYLES FOR LESS failed to provide employees with accurate
21 itemized wage statements;
22 (g) Whether STYLES FOR LESS’s compensatory time policy and practice
23 complies with the requirements of Labor Code §204.3;
24 (h) Whether STYLES FOR LESS has engaged in unfair competition by the
25 above-listed conduct; and,
26 (i) Whether STYLES FOR LESS’s conduct was willful.
27 14. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a Class
28 Action as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382, in that:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-7-
 1 (a) The persons who comprise the CLASS are so numerous that the joinder
2 of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition of their claims as
3 a class will benefit the parties and the Court;
4 (b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief issues
5 that are raised in this Complaint are common to the CLASS and will apply
6 uniformly to every member of the CLASS;
7 (c) The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims of
8 each member of the CLASS. The PLAINTIFF, like all other Class
9 Members, was not correctly compensated for all hours worked, including
10 compensable off the clock work time and premium pay for reporting time
11 because of DEFENDANT’s company policies and practices. The
12 PLAINTIFF sustained economic injuries arising from STYLES FOR
13 LESS’s violations of the laws of California. The PLAINTIFF and the
14 Class Members are similarly or identically harmed by the same unfair,
15 deceptive, unlawful and pervasive pattern of misconduct engaged in by
16 STYLES FOR LESS; and,
17 (d) The representative PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and
18 protect the interest of the CLASS, and has retained counsel who are
19 competent and experienced in Class Action litigation. There are no
20 material conflicts between the claims of the representative PLAINTIFF
21 and the Class Members that would make class certification inappropriate.
22 Counsel for the CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all Class
23 Members.
24 15. In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this Action
25 is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
26 Section 382, in that:
27 (a) Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive,
28 statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution of

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-8-
 1 separate actions by individual members of the CLASS will create the risk
2 of:
3 (i) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual
4 members of the CLASS which would establish incompatible
5 standards of conduct for the parties opposing the CLASS; or,
6 (ii) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CLASS
7 which would as a practical matter be dispositive of interests of the
8 other members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair
9 or impede their ability to protect their interests;
10 (b) The parties opposing the CLASS have acted on grounds generally
11 applicable to the CLASS, making appropriate class-wide relief with
12 respect to the CLASS as a whole in that STYLES FOR LESS’s company
13 policies and practices failed to compensate employees for all hours
14 worked, and failed to properly apply the overtime rate of pay applicable
15 to all hours worked in excess of eight (8) in any workday and forty (40)
16 in any workweek; and,
17 (c) Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Class Members and
18 predominate over any question affecting only individual members, and
19 Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
20 efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of:
21 (i) The interests of the members of the CLASS in individually
22 controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
23 (ii) The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy
24 already commenced by or against members of the CLASS;
25 (iii) The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of
26 the claims in the particular forum;
27 (iv) The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a
28 Class Action; and,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-9-
 1 (v) The basis of STYLES FOR LESS’s policies and practices
2 uniformly applied to all Class Members.
3 16. This Court should permit this Action to be maintained as a Class Action pursuant
4 to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382, because:
5 (a) The questions of law and fact common to the CLASS predominate over
6 any question affecting only individual members;
7 (b) A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair and
8 efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the CLASS;
9 (c) The Class Members are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all
10 Class Members before the Court;
11 (d) The PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, will not be able to obtain
12 effective and economic legal redress unless the Action is maintained as a
13 Class Action;
14 (e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and
15 equitable relief for the common law and statutory violations and other
16 improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages
17 and injuries which STYLES FOR LESS’s actions have inflicted upon the
18 CLASS;
19 (f) There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets and
20 available insurance of STYLES FOR LESS are sufficient to adequately
21 compensate the members of the CLASS for any injuries sustained;
22 (g) STYLES FOR LESS has acted or has refused to act on grounds generally
23 applicable to the CLASS, thereby making final class-wide relief
24 appropriate with respect to the CLASS as a whole; and,
25 (h) The Class Members are readily ascertainable from the business records
26 of STYLES FOR LESS. The CLASS consists of all of STYLES FOR
27 LESS’s non-exempt, hourly employees who were subject to the above
28 described uniform policies and practices in California during the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-10-
 1 applicable time period.
2
3 JURISDICTION & VENUE
4 17. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of
5 Civil Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section
6 17203. This Action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of similarly situated employees
7 of Styles for Less, Inc. pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382.
8 18. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
9 Sections 395 and 395.5, because STYLES FOR LESS (i) currently maintains and at all
10 relevant times maintained offices and facilities in this County, and (ii) committed the
11 wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against members of the CLASS.
12
13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14 For Unlawful, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices
15 [Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.]
16 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
17 19. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
18 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint.
19 20. DEFENDANT is a “persons” as that term is defined under the California
20 Business & Professions Code, Section 17021.
21 21. Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code defines unfair
22 competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17200
23 applies to violations of labor laws in the employment context. Section 17203 authorizes
24 injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition as
25 follows:
26 Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair
competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court
27 may make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as
may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice
28 which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-11-
 1 necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or
personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.
2
22. By the conduct alleged herein, STYLES FOR LESS’s uniform policies and
3
practices violated and continue to violate California law, and specifically provisions of the
4
Wage Orders, the California Labor Code, including Sections 201, 202, 204, 204.3, 206.5, 210,
5
510 and 1198, and the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 11010 and 11040, for
6
which this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the
7
California Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
8
23. By the conduct alleged herein, STYLES FOR LESS’s practices were unfair in
9
that these practices violate public policy, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or
10
substantially injurious to employees, and are without valid justification or utility, for which this
11
Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the California
12
Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
13
24. By the conduct alleged herein, STYLES FOR LESS’s practices were deceptive
14
and fraudulent in that STYLES FOR LESS’s uniform practice was to represent to its employees
15
that they were not entitled to compensation for all hours worked, when in fact these
16
representations were false and likely to deceive, for which this Court should issue equitable and
17
injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code,
18
including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
19
25. By and through the unfair and unlawful business practices described herein,
20
STYLES FOR LESS has obtained valuable property, money, and services from the
21
PLAINTIFF, and from the Class Members, which economic loss includes wages for hours
22
worked, and has deprived them of valuable rights and benefits guaranteed by law and contract,
23
all to the detriment of the employees and to the benefit of DEFENDANT so as to allow
24
DEFENDANT to unfairly compete against competitors who comply with the law.
25
26. All the acts described herein as violations of, among other things, the California
26
Labor Code, California Code of Regulations, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
27
Orders, are unlawful and in violation of public policy; and are immoral, unethical, oppressive,
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-12-
 1 and unscrupulous, are deceptive, and thereby constitute unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
2 practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, Sections 17200 et seq.
3 DEFENDANT’s conduct was also deceptive in that DEFENDANT represented to PLAINTIFF
4 and the others members of the CLASS that they were not entitled to receive compensation for
5 all hours worked, including wages for hours worked off the clock preparing to close the retail
6 stores and reporting to a STYLES FOR LESS location for work on their "day off" or to cover
7 for another employee who could not attend their shift.
8 27. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, are entitled to, and do, seek such relief as
9 may be necessary to restore to them the money and property which DEFENDANT has acquired,
10 or of which the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have been deprived, by means of the
11 above described unlawful and unfair business practices. The relief sought in this cause of action
12 includes payment of wages for hours worked by the Class Members, which includes both wages
13 for straight time and overtime hours.
14 28. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, are further entitled to, and do, seek a
15 declaration that the above described business practices are unfair and unlawful and that an
16 injunctive relief should be issued restraining STYLES FOR LESS from engaging in any of these
17 unfair and unlawful business practices in the future.
18 29. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have no plain, speedy, and/or adequate
19 remedy at law that will end the unfair and unlawful business practices of STYLES FOR LESS.
20 Further, the practices herein alleged presently continue to occur unabated. As a result of the
21 unfair and unlawful business practices described herein, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class
22 Members, have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless STYLES FOR
23 LESS is restrained from continuing to engage in these unfair and unlawful business practices.
24 In addition, compensation to the PLAINTIFF as well as to the other members of the CLASS.
25
26 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
27 For Failure To Pay Overtime Wages
28 [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 204.3 210, 218, 510, 1194 & 1198]

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-13-
 1 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
2 30. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
3 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Complaint.
4 31. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, bring a claim for DEFENDANT’s willful
5 and intentional violations of the California Labor Code, Sections 201, 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 510,
6 515, 558, 1198, and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010 and 11040 for
7 DEFENDANT’s failure to correctly pay them for all the overtime hours they worked, including
8 hours worked off the clock at the end of their shifts which was directly related to the employees’
9 principal job duties, and reporting to a STYLES FOR LESS location for work.
10 32. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 204, other applicable laws and
11 regulations, and public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all overtime hours
12 worked. Labor Code Section 201 and 202 require DEFENDANT to pay all wages due to an
13 employee whose employment terminated.
14 33. California Labor Code Section 510 further provides that employees in California
15 shall not be employed more than eight (8) hours per workday and forty (40) hours per
16 workweek unless they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts
17 specified by law.
18 34. California Labor Code Section 1194 establishes an employee's right to recover
19 unpaid wages, including overtime compensation and interest thereon, together with the costs
20 of suit. Section 1198 of the California Labor Code states that the employment of an employee
21 for longer hours than those fixed by the Industrial Welfare Commission is unlawful.
22 35. During the CLASS PERIOD, STYLES FOR LESS maintained a uniform wage
23 practice of paying the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, without regard to the number of
24 hours they actually worked. As set forth herein, DEFENDANT’s policy and practice was to
25 intentionally and uniformly deny timely payment of all wages due, including overtime wages,
26 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members, and STYLES FOR LESS in fact failed to pay these
27 employees for all overtime hours worked, including hours worked off the clock at the end of
28 their shifts preparing to close the retail stores and reporting to DEFENDANT’s locations for

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-14-
 1 work.
2 36. STYLES FOR LESS's uniform pattern of unlawful wage and hour practices
3 manifested, without limitation, applicable to the CLASS as a whole by implementing a uniform
4 policy and systematic practice that denied compensation to the Class Members, including the
5 PLAINTIFF, for all the hours they worked.
6 37. In committing these violations of the California Labor Code, STYLES FOR
7 LESS inaccurately under-reported the actual time worked and STYLES FOR LESS underpaid
8 the overtime wages due for the actual amount of hours worked, in violation of California Labor
9 Code Section 206.5. STYLES FOR LESS acted in an illegal attempt to avoid payment of
10 earned overtime compensation and other benefits in violation of the California Labor Code, the
11 Industrial Welfare Commission requirements, and other applicable laws and regulations.
12 38. As a direct result of STYLES FOR LESS’s unlawful wage practices as alleged
13 herein, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members did not receive adequate compensation for all
14 the overtime hours they actually worked for STYLES FOR LESS’s benefit.
15 39. California Labor Code Section 515 sets out various categories of employees who
16 are exempt from the overtime requirements of the law. None of these exemptions are applicable
17 to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and
18 the Class Members, were classified by DEFENDANT as non-exempt from overtime and
19 performed non-exempt job duties.
20 40. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were
21 classified as non-exempt from overtime by STYLES FOR LESS. None of the exemptions are
22 applicable to the CLASS based on their job duties. Further, the PLAINTIFF and the Class
23 Members are not subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement that would preclude the
24 causes of action contained herein this Complaint. Rather, the PLAINTIFF brings this Action
25 on behalf of herself and the members of the CLASS based on DEFENDANT’s violations of
26 non-negotiable, non-waiveable rights provided by the state of California.
27 41. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members worked
28 more hours than they were paid for and/or were paid less for hours worked that they were

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-15-
 1 entitled to, constituting a failure to pay all earned overtime wages. During the CLASS PERIOD,
2 the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, regularly worked hours off the clock at the end of
3 their shifts preparing to close the retail stores.
4 42. DEFENDANT failed to accurately pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members
5 wages for all the overtime hours they actually worked, which hours were in excess of the
6 maximum hours permissible by law as required by the California Labor Code, Sections 204, 510
7 and 1198, even though the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were regularly required to work,
8 and did in fact work, hours that STYLES FOR LESS never recorded, as evidenced by STYLES
9 FOR LESS’s business records and witnessed by employees.
10 43. By virtue of DEFENDANT's unlawful failure to pay overtime compensation to
11 the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members accurately for the true number of hours they worked,
12 the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer an economic
13 injury in amounts which are presently unknown to them and which will be ascertained
14 according to proof at trial.
15 44. During the CLASS PERIOD, STYLES FOR LESS knew or should have
16 known that the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members worked hours that they were not
17 compensated for overtime hours worked in excess of eight (8) in any workday and forty (40)
18 in any workweek. STYLES FOR LESS systematically elected, either through intentional
19 malfeasance or gross nonfeasance, not to pay employees the correct amount for their labor as
20 a matter of uniform corporate policy, practice and procedure, and to perpetrate this systematic
21 scheme, STYLES FOR LESS refused to pay employees for compensable work time.
22 45. In performing the acts and practices herein alleged in violation of labor laws and
23 refusing to compensate the Class Members for all the hours they worked and provide the
24 requisite overtime compensation, STYLES FOR LESS acted and continues to act intentionally,
25 oppressively, and maliciously toward the PLAINTIFF, and toward the Class Members, with a
26 conscious of and utter disregard for their legal rights, or the consequences to them, and with the
27 despicable intent of depriving them of their property and legal rights, and otherwise causing
28 them injury in order to increase corporate profits at the expense of the PLAINTIFF and the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-16-
 1 Class Members.
2 46. STYLES FOR LESS’s respective failure to accurately record the hours worked
3 by the CLASS and pay the proper amount of overtime compensation to the PLAINTIFF and the
4 Class Members violates IWC Wage Orders No. 1 and 4 and the California Labor Code, Sections
5 201, 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 218, 510, 1194 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful.
6 47. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, request recovery of unpaid
7 overtime compensation according to proof, interest, statutory costs, as well as the assessment
8 of any statutory penalties against DEFENDANT, in a sum as provided by the California Labor
9 Code and/or other applicable statutes. In addition, to the extent wages are determined to be
10 owed to the PLAINTIFF and Class Members whose employment has terminated, these
11 employees are further entitled to waiting time penalties under Section 203 of the California
12 Labor Code, which are sought herein.
13
14 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
15 For Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements
16 [Cal. Lab. Code § 226]
17 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
18 48. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
19 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint.
20 49. Pursuant to the California Labor Code, Section 226, an employer must furnish
21 employees with an "accurate itemized statement in writing" showing all of the following items:
22 (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose
23 compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under
24 subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission,
25 (3) the number of piecerate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid
26 on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of
27 the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive
28 dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-17-
 1 social security number, except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of his or her
2 social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number
3 may be shown on the itemized statement, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the
4 employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
5 corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. See California
6 Labor Code § 226.
7 50. At all relevant times mentioned herein, STYLES FOR LESS violated
8 California Labor Code Section 226 with respect to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members,
9 without limitation, in that STYLES FOR LESS inaccurately or completely failed to record and
10 report all the hours they actually worked on their pay stubs, including straight time, reporting
11 time and overtime hours worked, as well as their gross wages earned.
12 51. This failure was the result of STYLES FOR LESS’s intentional refusal to
13 compensate the employees for all hours worked, including hours worked off the clock at the end
14 of their shifts preparing to close the retail stores, and this miscalculation of the applicable
15 regular rate as herein alleged.
16 52. STYLES FOR LESS knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with
17 California Labor Code Section 226, causing damages to the PLAINTIFF and the Class
18 Members. These damages include, but are not limited to, unpaid wages for all hours actually
19 worked, the costs expended calculating the true hours worked and the amount of employment
20 taxes which were not properly paid to state and federal tax authorities. These damages may be
21 difficult to estimate. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, may recover
22 liquidated damages of $50.00 for the initial pay period in which the violation occurred, and
23 $100.00 for each violation in subsequent pay period pursuant to California Labor Code Section
24 226, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial (but in no event more than $4,000.00
25 for the PLAINTIFF and each respective member of the CLASS herein), plus statutory costs,
26 pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226(g).
27
28 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-18-
 1 For Failure to Reimburse Employees for Necessary Expenses
2 [Cal. Lab. Code § 2802]
3 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
4 53. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
5 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 52 of this Complaint.
6 54. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 provides, in relevant part, that:
7 An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures
or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his
8 or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even
though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions,
9 believed them to be unlawful.
10 55. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code § 2802, by
11 failing to indemnify and reimburse PLAINTIFF, and all the Class Members for all expenses
12 incurred in the discharge of their job duties for DEFENDANT’s benefit. In particular,
13 DEFENDANT failed to reimburse the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for clothing
14 expenses incurred while working in DEFENDANT’s retail stores. It was STYLES FOR
15 LESS’s uniform policy and practice to not reimburse the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members
16 for clothing necessary to fulfill their job duties of managing the day-to-day operations of the
17 retail stores. Specificall, STYLES FOR LESS systematically insisted that all Managers
18 purchase STYLE FOR LESS’s merchandise from its retail stores the wearing of which was
19 necessary to fulfill the employees’ job duties. DEFENDANT’s clothing was purchased for
20 wearing at work for DEFENDANT. As a result, the Managers patronized the DEFENDANT’s
21 merchandise in the purchase of the clothing from its retail stores for work purposes only.
22 DEFENDANT is estopped by DEFENDANT’s conduct to assert any waiver of this expectation.
23 Although these expenses were necessary expenditures incurred by the PLAINTIFF and the
24 Class Members, DEFENDANT failed to indemnify and reimburse the PLAINTIFF and the
25 Class Members for these expenses as an employer is required to do under the laws and
26 regulations of California.
27 56. Thus, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were forced by the expectation of
28 DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT’s unwritten policy to contribute to the expenses of the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-19-
 1 DEFENDANT’s business, which expenses must be refunded by DEFENDANT to each member
2 of the CLASS.
3 57. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802(b) and (c) provide for interest at the statutory post
4 judgment rate of 10% simple interest per annum from the date of the expenditure plus attorneys’
5 fees to collect reimbursement.
6 58. PLAINTIFF, therefore, demands reimbursement for expenditures or losses
7 incurred by her and the Class Members as a condition of her employment for DEFENDANT,
8 or their obedience to the directions of the DEFENDANT with interest at the statutory rate and
9 costs under Cal. Labor Code § 2802.
10
11 PRAYER
12 WHEREFOR, the PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against each Defendant, jointly
13 and severally, as follows:
14 1. On behalf of the CLASS:
15 A) That the Court certify action asserted by the CLASS as a Class Action
16 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382;
17 B) An order temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining
18 DEFENDANT from engaging in similar unlawful conduct as set forth herein;
19 C) An order requiring DEFENDANT to pay all sums unlawfully withheld from
20 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CLASS pursuant to Cal. Bus. &
21 Prof. Code §17203;
22 D) Disgorgement of DEFENDANT’s ill-gotten gains into a fluid fund for
23 restitution of the sums incidental to DEFENDANT’s violations due to
24 PLAINTIFF and to the Class Members pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
25 §17203;
26 E) Damages for the full amount of unpaid overtime wages pursuant to Labor
27 Code §1194;
28 F) Penalties payable to all terminated employees in the CLASS in accordance

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-20-