(FLSA Minimum Wage Violations)   (FLSA Overtime Violations)   13.  Defendant provides infrastructure solutions to gas, water, and electric utilities  throughout the United States. As part of its infrastructure solutions, Defendant offers its customers  communications infrastructure and meter deployment services.  Case: 2:20-cv-00240-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/16/20 Page: 2 of 9  PAGEID #: 2 3   14.  Defendant employs Customer Service Representatives as “independent contractors”  to perform virtual call center services remotely from their homes.   15.  On or about October 14, 2019, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a Customer Service  Representative to perform call center services for Defendant’s customers. Plaintiff was hired by  Defendant as an “independent contractor,” and Plaintiff worked remotely from her home. Plaintiff’s  employment relationship with Defendant terminated on or about December 19, 2019.   16.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are not paid an hourly wage by  Defendant. Rather, Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees $1.50 per inbound  or outbound phone call they made. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per  workweek.   17.  Although Defendant classified Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as  independent contractors, the economic reality was that Plaintiff and others similarly situated were  employees of Defendant.   18.  The duties Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees performed for Defendant  were an integral part of Defendant’s business, as they interfaced directly with Defendant’s customers  to handle customer inquiries, schedule installations, and resolve customer complaints.   19.  Defendant gave Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees a weekly work  schedule defining the times that they were required to be logged into Defendant’s computer system  and available to take calls. Defendant also scheduled Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees’  lunch breaks, and required them to request permission to take an unpaid rest break.   20.  If Plaintiff or any other similarly situated employees were unable to work an assigned  shift, they had to contact their supervisor to request time off, just as an employee would.  Case: 2:20-cv-00240-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/16/20 Page: 3 of 9  PAGEID #: 3 4   21.  Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’ positions with Defendant did not  require any unique or highly specialized skill, and whatever training was necessary for Plaintiff and  other similarly situated employees to perform their job duties was provided by Defendant.   22.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not required to make any  investment in specialized equipment to perform their job duties. Rather, they simply used their own  computer and phone connection to log in remotely to Defendant’s computer network, and used  Defendant’s software applications to perform their job duties.    23.  In contrast, Defendant has invested substantial amounts of money implementing,  configuring, and maintaining the software applications Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees used to perform their job duties, and will continue to do so.   24.  Because Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are dependent on calls being  assigned to them from Defendant, they do not have the opportunity to increase their opportunities for  profit or loss through managerial skill.    25.  Defendant also has the right to control the manner in which Plaintiff and other  similarly situated employees perform their work by, among other things, requiring them to follow  Defendant’s processes for handling phone calls, and requiring them to meet Defendant’s quality and  productivity expectations.   26.  Furthermore, although Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were paid on  a per-call basis, they were required to be available to take a call at any time during their scheduled  shift, and to be logged into Defendant’s “queue” for calls even if there were no calls in the queue.  Consequently, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not permitted to effectively use  for their own purpose the time they spent waiting for calls to be assigned, nor were they paid for this  time.  Case: 2:20-cv-00240-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/16/20 Page: 4 of 9  PAGEID #: 4 5   27.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were improperly  classified as independent contractors, and should have been classified as non-exempt employees  under the FLSA, thereby making them entitled to be paid the minimum wage, and one and one-half  their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.   28.  During periods of low call volume, Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly  situated employees less than the minimum wage.   29.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked over 40 hours per  workweek in the three years preceding the filing of this Action.   30.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime  compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of forty (40) each workweek.    31.  Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of the  33.  Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and on  behalf of all other similarly situated persons who have been, are being, or will be, adversely affected  by Defendant’s unlawful conduct.   34.  The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent and for whom Plaintiff seeks the right to  send “opt-in” notices for purposes of the collective action, and of which Plaintiff is herself a member,  is composed of and defined as follows:  All current and former Customer Service Representatives who worked for  Defendant at any time from three (3) years preceding the date of the filing of this  Action to the present, and who were classified as independent contractors who  were paid on a per-call basis.  Case: 2:20-cv-00240-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/16/20 Page: 5 of 9  PAGEID #: 5 6   35.  This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b).  In addition to Plaintiff, numerous current and former employees are similarly situated with  regard to their claims for unpaid wages and damages. Plaintiff is representative of those other  employees and are acting on behalf of their interests as well as her own in bringing this action.    36.  These similarly situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily  identifiable through Defendant’s payroll records. These individuals may readily be notified of this  action and allowed to opt-in pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of collectively  adjudicating their claims for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and  costs under the FLSA.  37.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   38.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions on  behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b).  Plaintiff’s written consent to becoming a party to this action pursuant to § 216(b) has been  filed with the Court.   39.  The FLSA requires that Defendants compensate employees at minimum wages for all  hours worked.    40.  Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at  minimum wages.  By engaging in that practice, Defendants willfully violated the FLSA and  regulations thereunder that have the force and effect of law.   41.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees were injured in that they did not receive minimum wages due to them pursuant to the  Case: 2:20-cv-00240-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/16/20 Page: 6 of 9  PAGEID #: 6 7  FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) entitles them to an award of “unpaid minimum wages” as well as “an  additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” Section 216(b) further provides that “[t]he court …  shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney’s  fee to be paid by the Defendants, and costs of the action.”  42.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    43.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked over 40 hours per  workweek in the three years preceding the filing of this Action.   44.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime  compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of forty (40) each workweek.    45.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all  hours worked over forty (40) each workweek violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, 29 C.F.R. §  785.24.   46.  Defendant’s failure to keep records of all hours worked for each workday and the total  hours worked each workweek by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees violated the FLSA,  29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, 29 C.F.R. § 516.2(a)(7).   47.  By engaging in the above-mentioned conduct, Defendant willfully, knowingly, and/or  recklessly violated provisions of the FLSA.   48.  As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant to the 