(29 U.S.C. § 207 - FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (O.R.C. § 4111.03 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (O.R.C. § 4113.15 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR OPPA VIOLATION)   (VIOLATIONS OF RECORDKEEPING LAWS)   23.  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated worked as hourly, non-exempt  employees for Defendant.    24.  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated held job titles which included, but are  not limited to, technician2, operator, laborer, mechanic, supervisor, and crew leader (collectively  referred to as “field technicians”).    26.  Defendant required Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated field technicians  to report to work prior to the scheduled start of their shifts to complete pre-shift duties. For  example, Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated were required to don personal protective  equipment (“PPE”); retrieve hoses, clamps, and other equipment for the day’s work; load and strap  down equipment on the vehicle; and review and complete paperwork for the day’s job.   27.  With respect to pre-shift duties, Defendant maintained a policy or practice where it  did not begin compensating field technicians until after their pre-shift duties were completed even  though such duties were integral and indispensable to their job duties. If the field technicians  reported to Defendant’s facility to complete the pre-shift duties, they were not compensated until  they were in the vehicle and ready to leave for the job site. If the field technicians reported directly  to the job site, they were not compensated until they finished their pre-shift duties.    28.  These pre-shift duties were integral and indispensable to the principal job duties of  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated field technicians. The pre-shift duties constitute  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated field technicians first principal activity each day.   29.  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated field technicians were not paid for the  time spent completing their pre-shift duties.    31.  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated post-shift duties include, but are not  limited to, inspecting the vehicle for damage, filling the vehicle with gas, cleaning the vehicle, and  unloading the equipment from the vehicle.    32.  These post-shift duties were integral and indispensable to the principal job duties of  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated field technicians. The post-shift duties constitute  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated field technicians last principal activity each day.   33.  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated field technicians were not paid for the  time spent completing their post-shift duties.    34.  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated regularly worked in excess of forty  (40) hours in a workweek.    35.  Defendant’s supervisors log the field technicians time worked. Named Plaintiffs and  those similarly situated were only compensated for the time submitted by the supervisors.    36.  Defendant instructed its supervisors to exclude all time spent performing pre- and  post-shift duties.    37.  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated were only compensated for the time  submitted by the supervisor, not their actual time worked.    38.  Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated regularly worked more than forty (40)  hours per workweek, or they would have worked more than forty (40) hours per workweek if all of  their compensable time was logged, but they were not paid one and one-half times their regular rate  of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) as a result of Defendant’s policy or practice to not  compensate them for pre- and post-shift duties.    40.  Defendant’s polices and/or practices of not compensating field technicians for pre-  and post-shift work, apply to all of its hourly, non-exempt technicians.   41.  This unpaid work performed by Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated  employees constituted a part of their principal activities, was required by Defendant, and was  performed for Defendant’s benefit.   42.  Moreover, this unpaid work was an integral and indispensable part of other  principal activities performed by Named Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees as they  cannot perform their work without performing their pre- and post-shift duties.   43.  At all times relevant herein, Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated were  employees as defined in the FLSA, the Ohio Acts, and Ohio Constitution Art. 2 §34a.    44.  Defendant is and has been an “employer” as that term is defined by the FLSA, the  Ohio Acts, and Ohio Constitution Art. 2 §34a.    45.  Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Named Plaintiffs and other  similarly-situated employees for time spent working before and after their scheduled shifts as  described herein.   46.  As a result of Defendant’s common policy and/or practice described above, Named  Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees have not been paid for all hours worked, resulting  in overtime damages in one or more workweeks when they worked at least 40 hours during their  employment.   48.  Named Plaintiffs bring Count One of the action on their own behalf pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b), and on behalf of all other persons similarly-situated who have been, are being, or  will be adversely affected by Defendant’s unlawful conduct.   49.  The class which Named Plaintiffs seek to represent and for whom Named Plaintiffs  seek the right to send “opt-in” notices for purposes of the collective action, and of which  Named  Plaintiffs themselves are members, is composed of and defined as follows:  All current and former hourly, non-exempt field technicians3 of  Defendant who worked at least 40 hours in any workweek during  the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint and continuing  through the final disposition of this case (“FLSA Collective” or  “FLSA Collective Members”).   50.  This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) as to claims for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees  and costs under the FLSA.  In addition to Named Plaintiffs, numerous current and former field  technicians are similarly situated with regard to their wages and claims for unpaid overtime wages  and damages.  Named Plaintiffs are representative of those other field technicians and are acting  on behalf of their interests, as well as their own, in bringing this action.   52.  Named Plaintiffs bring their Ohio Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23  as a class action on behalf of themselves and all other members of the following class:  All Ohio current and former hourly, non-exempt field technicians4 of  Defendant who worked at least 40 hours in any workweek during the two  years preceding the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the final  disposition of this case (the “Rule 23 Class” or the “Rule 23 Class  Members”).   53.  The Rule 23 Class includes all field technicians employed by Defendant who  worked in the State of Ohio during the relevant time period above.   54.  The Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.   55.  Named Plaintiffs are each members of the Rule 23 Class and their claims for unpaid  wages are typical of the claims of other members of the Rule 23 Class.   56.  Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the Rule 23 Class and the  interests of all members of the Rule 23 Class.   57.  Named Plaintiffs have no interests that are antagonistic to or in conflict with those  interests of the Rule 23 Class that they have undertaken to represent.   58.  Named Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced class action counsel  who can ably represent the interests of the entire Rule 23 Class.   59.  Questions of law and fact are common to the Rule 23 Class.   61.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as Defendant acted  or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Rule 23 Class, making appropriate  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class as a whole.   62.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of  law and facts common to the Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual  members of the Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to other available methods for  the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   63.  Questions of law and fact that are common to the Rule 23 Class include, but are not  limited to: (a) whether Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act by failing to pay the Rule 23 Class  for pre- and/or post-shift work performed; (b) whether Defendant kept accurate records of the  amount of time the Rule 23 Class was working each day; (c) whether Defendant’s violations of  the Ohio Wage Act were knowing and willful; (d) what amount of unpaid and/or withheld  compensation, including overtime compensation, is due to Named Plaintiffs and other members of  the Rule 23 Class on account of Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Wage Act; (e) whether the  unpaid and/or withheld compensation remained unpaid in violation of the OPPA; and (f) what  amount of prejudgment interest is due to Rule 23 Class members on the overtime or other  compensation which was withheld or not paid to them.   65.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   66.  This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiffs on behalf  of themselves and the FLSA Collective Members against Defendant.   67.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA  Collective for integral and indispensable pre- and post-shift work performed each day violated the  74.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   75.  This claim is brought under the Ohio Acts.   76.  Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by  Defendant, and Defendant is an employer covered by the overtime requirements under the Ohio  Acts.   77.  The Ohio Acts requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not less  than one and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over  forty (40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the exemptions  of section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.”  See R.C. § 4111.03(A); see  also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   78.  While employed by Defendant, Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members  worked in excess of the maximum weekly hours permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03, but they were  not fully paid overtime wages for all such hours spent working as outlined above.   79.  As a result of Defendant’s company-wide corporate policies, it failed to pay Named  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members all overtime wages earned resulting in unpaid overtime.   81.  Defendant’s repeated, knowing failure to pay overtime wages to the Named  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members were violations of O.R.C. §4111.03, and as such,  Defendant willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime compensation to which Named  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members are entitled.   82.  For Defendant’s violations of O.R.C. §4111.03, Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23  Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. Named Plaintiffs seeks unpaid  overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other  remedies available, on behalf of themselves and the Rule 23 Class Members.  83.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   84.  Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by  Defendant.   85.  During relevant times, Defendant was an entity covered by the OPPA and Named  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by Defendant within the meaning  of the OPPA.   86.  The OPPA requires that the Defendant pay Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class  Members all wages, including unpaid overtime, on or before the first day of each month, for wages  earned by them during the first half of the preceding month ending with the fifteenth day  thereof, and on or before the fifteenth day of each month, for wages earned by them during the  last half of the preceding calendar month. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(A).   88.  Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members’ unpaid wages remain unpaid for  more than thirty (30) days beyond their regularly scheduled payday.   89.  In violating the OPPA, Defendant acted willfully, without a good faith basis and  with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.  90.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.    91.  Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4111.08, 4111.14(G) & (H), and Article II, Section 34a of the  Ohio Constitution require employers to maintain and preserve payroll or other records  containing, among other things, the hours worked each workday and the total hours worked  each workweek. See also, 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2 et seq.   92.  During times material to this complaint, Defendant was a covered employer, and  required to comply with the Ohio’s Recordkeeping laws.   93.  Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members were covered employees  entitled to the protection of Ohio’s Recordkeeping laws.   94.  During times material to this complaint, Defendant violated Ohio’s  Recordkeeping laws with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members by  failing to properly maintain accurate records of all hours Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23  Class Members worked each workday and within each workweek.   95.  In violating Ohio’s Recordkeeping laws, Defendant acted willfully and with  reckless disregard of clearly applicable recordkeeping provisions.  V. 