(Failure to Pay Overtime Wages)   20.  Defendant operates and has operated “call centers” in Arizona and across  the nation where telephone-dedicated employees similar to Plaintiff handle phone calls  regarding banking and investment services offered by Defendant to its customers.     22.  Prior to starting work on the call center floor, Plaintiff and other similarly  situated telephone-based employees were and are interviewed by employees and  managers of Defendant and Aerotek.   23.  Defendant had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff and other persons  similarly situated.   24.  At the Bank of America call center where Plaintiff Colon worked, both  Bank of America and Aerotek had managers on the floor of the call center during the  workday, managing the work activities of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated  persons.   25.  Defendant does not allow telephone-based employees to use its phones and  computers for any personal use.  Additionally, Defendant generally prohibits and does  not allow telephone-based employees to use their own personal cell phones on the call  center floor.  Under Defendant’s policies and practices, telephone-based employees are  required to store their personal cell phones during the work day and can generally only  use them on breaks and off the call center floor.    26.  At the Bank of America call center where Plaintiff worked, Defendant’s  managers on the call center floor could and did regularly see with their own eyes that  Plaintiff and similarly situated telephone-based employees arrived at their work stations  before the start of their scheduled shift time, logged into Defendant’s computers, and  began working on their computers prior to the start of their scheduled shift time.   27.  Despite seeing and knowing that Plaintiff and similarly situated telephone- based employees performed work at their work stations prior to their scheduled shift time  start, Defendant and its managers on the floor of the call center did not make any effort to  stop or otherwise disallow this pre-shift work and instead allowed and permitted it to  happen.   29.  By possessing, controlling and/or accessing this information, Defendant  knew that Plaintiff and similarly situated telephone-based employees worked prior to the  start of their scheduled shift time.   30.  Despite having this information and knowing that Plaintiff and similarly  situated telephone-based employees logged into their computers, initialized necessary  software programs, and read company issued emails and instructions prior to the start of  their scheduled shift time, Defendant did not make any effort to stop or otherwise  disallow this pre-shift work and instead allowed and permitted it to happen.     31.  Defendant knowingly required and/or permitted Plaintiff and those similarly  situated to him to perform unpaid work before and after the start and end times of their  shifts, including but not limited to booting up computers, initializing several software  programs, and reading company issued emails and instructions prior to the start of their  scheduled shift time, and completing customer service calls, closing down the software  programs, and logging off the system after the end of their scheduled shift times.   32.  In addition, by having managers on the call center floor and having access  to the electronic data, among other things, Defendant was aware that Plaintiff and those  similarly situated to him also performed work for Defendant on their break periods, for  which they were not paid.  The work that Plaintiff and similarly situated employees  performed during break periods includes, but is not limited to, completing customer  orders, finishing customer service calls, logging back into the phone system, re-booting  their computers and initializing software programs.   33.  The amount of uncompensated time Plaintiff and those similarly situated  to him spend or have spent on these required and unpaid work activities averages  approximately fifteen to twenty minutes per day per person.   35.  Defendant’s policy and practice permits and/or requires telephone-based  employees to be logged into their phones by the employee’s scheduled start time.     36.  In order to be logged into Defendant’s telephone systems, Defendant  required and/or permitted Plaintiff and similarly situated telephone-based employees to  arrive at their work station prior to their scheduled shift time and boot up computers,  initialize several software programs, and read company emails and instructions.    37.  Defendant’s policy and practice disciplines telephone-based employees if  they are not logged into their phones and ready to handle calls by the start of their  scheduled shift time.     38.  This policy and practice of Defendant results in telephone-based  employees, including the Plaintiff, to boot up their computers, initialize several software  programs and/or read company emails and instructions prior to their start of their  scheduled shift time.    39.  As set forth herein, via their policies and practices and through their own  telephone and computer systems, Defendant knew and was aware that the telephone- based employees performed work prior to the start of their scheduled shift.     40.  Defendant did not instruct Plaintiff and similarly situated telephone-based  employees to not log into their computers or telephone, or to not read company emails  prior to the start of their scheduled shift time.  Rather, Defendant required, permitted  and/or allowed Plaintiff and the putative class members to work prior to their scheduled  shift time.   42.  Defendant determined the rate of pay for Plaintiff other similarly situated  persons.   43.  Defendant’s managers reviewed and approved the time records of Plaintiff  and other similarly situated persons prior to them receiving their paychecks.     44.  Defendant supervised and controlled the work schedule of Plaintiff and  other similarly situated persons.   45.  Defendant was involved in determining the actual amount of compensation  paid to Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons.   46.  Plaintiff and those employees similarly situated are individuals who were,  or are, employed by Defendant in customer service, sales, and similar positions at  Defendant’s call centers who were not paid for some or all of their work activities prior to  the beginning of their shifts, during meal and rest breaks, or after the end of their shifts.   47.  Plaintiff and the other employees are similarly situated to one another  because their duties consisted primarily of providing services related to handling phone calls  regarding banking and investment services offered by Defendant to its customers while  working in Defendant’s call centers.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated all shared  similar policies, job titles, job descriptions, training, job duties and compensation, among  other things.   49.  The net effect of Defendant’s policies and practices, instituted and  approved by company managers, is that Defendant willfully failed to pay regular and  overtime compensation to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, and willfully failed to  keep accurate time records to save payroll costs.  Defendant thus enjoyed ill-gained  profits at the expense of its hourly employees.   50.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated at times work or worked in excess of  forty hours per week for Defendant in a given workweek.   51.  Defendant’s policy and practice of requiring and/or permitting its  employees, including Plaintiff and other non-exempt, hourly employees, to perform work  without pay for such work performed, violates Section 6 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206.   52.  Defendant’s policy and practice of requiring its employees to perform work  without pay in many instances has caused and continues to cause Plaintiff and certain  other similarly situated hourly employees to work in excess of forty hours per week,  without being properly compensated at a wage of 1.5 times their respective hourly rate  for such work performed, as required by Section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207.   53.  Defendant’s failure to compensate its non-exempt, hourly call center  employees with the full amount of the applicable regular wage or overtime wage has  caused Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt call center employees to suffer  harm.   54.  Defendant’s non-exempt, call center hourly employees are entitled to  compensation for all time they worked without pay in any given workweek.  56.  Plaintiff has actual knowledge that FLSA Class Members have also been  denied overtime pay for hours worked over forty hours per workweek.  That is, Plaintiff  worked with other telephone dedicated employees who worked at the Bank of America  call center.  As such, he has first-hand personal knowledge that the same pay violations  occurred to other class members.  Furthermore, other telephone dedicated employees at  Defendant’s call centers have shared with him similar pay violation experiences as those  described in this complaint.   57.  Other employees similarly situated to Plaintiff work or have worked at  Defendant’s call centers, but were not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half their  regular rate when those hours exceeded forty hours per workweek.     58.  Although Defendant permitted and/or required the FLSA Class Members to  work in excess of forty hours per workweek, Defendant has denied them full  compensation for their hours worked over forty.  Defendant has also denied them full  compensation at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.   59.  FLSA Class Members perform or have performed the same or similar work  as Plaintiff.   60.  FLSA Class Members regularly work or have worked in excess of forty  hours during a workweek.   61.  FLSA Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime pay at the  federally mandated wage rate under the FLSA.   62.  As such, FLSA Class Members are similar to Plaintiff in terms of job  duties, pay structure, and the denial of overtime and wages.   64.  The experiences of Plaintiff, with respect to his pay, are typical of the  experiences of the FLSA Class Members.   65.  The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each FLSA Class  Member does not prevent collective treatment.   66.  All FLSA Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements,  are entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty during a  workweek.   67.  Although the exact amount of damages may vary among FLSA Class  Members, the damages for the FLSA Class Members can be easily calculated by a simple  formula. The claims of all FLSA Class Members arise from a common nucleus of facts.  Liability is based on a systematic course of wrongful conduct by Defendant that caused  harm to all FLSA Class Members.   68.  As such, Plaintiff brings his FLSA overtime as a collective action on behalf  of the following class, and Plaintiff’s Counsel seek to send notice of this lawsuit to the  following described persons:  All persons who worked for Defendant as telephone  dedicated employees, however titled, who were compensated,  in part or in full, on an hourly basis at Defendant’s call  centers at any time between January 7, 2013 and the present  who did not receive the full amount of overtime wages earned  and owed to them.   69.  There are questions of law or fact common to the employees described in  paragraph 68.   70.  Plaintiff is similarly situated to the employees described in paragraph 68, as  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of those persons.   72.  This is not a collusive or friendly action.  Plaintiff has retained counsel  experienced in complex employment litigation, and Plaintiff and his counsel will fairly  and adequately protect the interests of the persons described in paragraph 68.   73.  A collective action is the most appropriate method for the fair and efficient  resolution of the matters alleged in Count I.   74.  At all relevant times, Defendant employed Plaintiff and the persons  described in paragraph 68.   75.  At all relevant times, Defendant paid Plaintiff and the persons described in  paragraph 68 to work.   76.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been an “employer” of Plaintiff and the  persons described in paragraph 68, as the term “employer” is defined by Section 3(d) of  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).     77.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the persons described in paragraph 68  have been “employees” of Defendant as defined by Section 3(e) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.  § 203(e).  78.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 77  as paragraph 78 of this Count I.   79.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf and the members of the class  described in paragraph 68, asserts claims for unpaid overtime pursuant to the FLSA.   80.  At any and all times relevant hereto, Defendant was an “enterprise engaged  in commerce” within the meaning of Section 3(s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s).   82.  At any and all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff and the members of the  class described in paragraph 68 were “employees” of Defendant as defined by Section  3(e) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).   83.  Plaintiff and the members of the class described in paragraph 68 were not  paid for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a week during the applicable statutory  time period, in violation of the maximum hours provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207.   84.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and the  members of the class described in paragraph 68 premium pay for all time worked over 40  hours in a week was willful in that, among other things:  a.  Defendant knew that the FLSA required it to pay time and one-half  for all time worked over 40 hours in a week;  b.  Defendant failed to maintain true and accurate time records; and  c.  Defendant encouraged Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees to not record all time worked.   85.  As a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiff and the members of the  class described in paragraph 68 are due unpaid back wages and liquidated damages,  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216.  A.  Defendant’s Practice of Requiring and/or Permitting Telephone-Based  Hourly Employees to Work Before the Start of Their Scheduled Shift  Time  