6.12  Plaintiff and the Class Members are subject to a single policy and pay plan that they  were/are misclassified as exempt and paid the same amount no matter how many hours they  worked.  Defendant had a plan/policy in place which applied to Plaintiff and the Class Members  that they were not to be compensated overtime compensation for any hours worked over forty  (40) hours per week.      6.11  As Field Service Technicians, Plaintiff and Class Members regularly work/worked more  than forty (40) hours per workweek.  Neither he nor any of the other Class Members had  authority to (nor did they): manage an enterprise, hire or fire other employees, set the pay rates  of other employees, create policies or procedures to govern Defendant’s employees, handle  employee grievances, determine the type of equipment or materials that Defendant could use in  its operations, enter into contracts on behalf of Defendant or otherwise have operational control  over Defendant’s business operations and practices.  Moreover, Plaintiff and the Class Members  did not perform office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general  business operations of Defendant or its customers, nor did they exercise discretion and  independent judgment with respect to matters of significance in the conduct of Defendant’s  business.  In fact, Plaintiff and the class members spent much of their time performing manual  labor.   6.16  Throughout Plaintiff’s tenure working for Defendant, Field Service Technicians were  subject to the same pay policy/plan described herein, work/worked overtime hours, and were/are  not compensated in accordance with the FLSA by Defendant.  Over the past three (3) years there  have been other Field Service Technicians who were subject to the same policy and plan as  described herein.  Plaintiff is aware of other individuals who worked/currently work as Field  Service Technicians and were/are not compensated in accordance with the FLSA for hours  worked in excess of forty (40) hours per work week.     6.1  Plaintiff worked as a Field Service Technician for Defendant Rosen in Houston, Texas.   He was misclassified by Defendant as exempt from overtime compensation however, he was  expected to work over forty (40) hours per work week.  He reported to and was supervised by  Defendant’s Operations/Field Services Manager (Joe Coleman and Phillip Colborn).  Other  individuals who work/worked with Plaintiff, performed the same or similar job duties, were/are  paid the same and were/are titled Field Service Technician.    6.13  Plaintiff and the Class Members were at all times “non-exempt” employees and eligible  to receive overtime pay pursuant to Section 207 of the FLSA.   6.14  Defendant improperly classified Plaintiff and the Class Members as exempt from  receiving overtime compensation.  Defendant was aware that Plaintiff and the Class Members  were/are working over forty (40) hours per work week.   6.2  As a Field Service Technician, Plaintiff’s primary duties included but were not limited to,  loading trailers, strapping down all the equipment on the trailer, filling out forms with the start  and stop times for the inspections, unloading the trailer to get the equipment in the pipeline and  driving or transporting the tool used to do the inspection in the pipeline. All Field Service  Technicians employed by Defendant performed these job duties or substantially similar job  duties.     6.3  Plaintiff and the Class Members were not required to have a degree or any specific  certifications to perform their job other than certificates of completion received after completing  some training provided by Defendant.  Plaintiff and the Class Members were not required to  have a CDL license.  When driving   6.5  During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant there were about forty (40) Field Service  Technicians working out of the Houston, Texas office.     6.6  Defendant dictated what hours Plaintiff worked, provided the tools for him to do his job,  told him what work he was required to complete and the specifications on how the work was to  be completed.  Throughout the duration of his employment Plaintiff worked over forty (40)  hours per work week.  The overtime Plaintiff worked was necessary to meet the demands of the  job.  On average, Plaintiff and the Class Members work/worked approximately 12-15 hours per  day (sometimes more), 6 days per week.     6.7  Defendant controlled all the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.  Defendant determined  Plaintiff’s pay rate, the schedule he worked, and the policies and procedures Plaintiff and the  other Class Members are/were required to follow.  Plaintiff and the Class Members were also  subject to the same pay policy where they were misclassified as exempt and paid a biweekly  salary.   6.8  In order to perform their job duties, Plaintiff and the Class Members follow procedures  that are outlined in Defendant’s manuals and checklists.  Any deviation from such procedures, if  necessary, must first be approved by the Field Service Manager/Supervisor(s).  Plaintiff and the  Class Members are not allowed to make unilateral decisions about the tasks assigned or the  manner in which such tasks are completed without the approval of their supervisor/Field Service  Manager.   6.9  Plaintiff and the Class Members do/did not have the authority to make unilateral  decisions regarding the work assigned by Defendant.    7.  7.1  Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraph as if fully set forth  herein.   7.2  Plaintiff brings this suit as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) on behalf of  himself and all other persons employed by Defendant as Field Service Technicians within three  (3) years from the filing of this suit who, like Plaintiff, (1) have not been compensated for all  hours worked and/or (2) have not been compensated at one and a half times their regular rate of  pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a single work week.   7.3   Defendant classified/classifies and paid/pays all of its Field Service Technicians in the  manner described herein.  Defendant maintained a common pay practice or policy and the Class  Members are similarly situated to Plaintiff.   7.5  The damages for each individual can easily be calculated using the same methodology  and formula although the exact amount of the damages may vary.   7.6  Defendant possesses the names and addresses of Class Members in its records.  The Class  Members should be allowed to receive notice about this lawsuit and given an opportunity to join.   Like Plaintiff, these similarly situated workers are entitled to recover their unpaid wages,  overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages. Therefore, notice is  appropriately sent to the following class:  All Field Service Technicians that worked for Defendant at any time  during the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit to the  present that worked over forty (40) hours in any workweek.   7.7  Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and the Class Members as exempt from receiving  overtime compensation, failed to pay them wages for all hours worked and failed to pay them  overtime wages required by the FLSA for all hours worked over forty (40) hours per work week.   7.8  Defendant’s failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and the Class Members in  accordance with the FLSA was willful as that term is defined by Section 255(a) and was not  based on a good faith belief that its conduct complied with the FLSA.  Therefore, the three (3)  years statute of limitations period applies to Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ damages in this  case.   8. 