13.  Defendant employs personnel who provide consulting services to its customers.  Upon information and belief, these personnel are specialized project management employees for  the clients of Defendant and are essentially temporary employees assigned to work at  Defendant’s clients’ locations for the duration of such projects. Regardless of their job titles or  job duties, upon information and belief, these employees were not paid any compensation for  their ninth and tenth hours of work for each work day and were not paid time and a half overtime  rates for hours worked over forty in a week.    14.  Plaintiff and other Analysts, however, were not paid on a salary basis. When  Plaintiff and other Analysts worked more than one but less than 40 hours in a workweek, they  received less in weekly compensation than when they worked a full 40 hours in a workweek.  Similarly, if Plaintiff and other Analysts worked a partial day (less than eight hours in a day),  Defendant deducted the number of hours missed on that day from the employee’s weekly pay (a  practice known as deductions for “partial day absences”). For example, during the pay period  ending on July 15, 2014, Plaintiff worked—and reported on her timesheet—three hours on July 8  and, as a result, received less in compensation during the pay period than if she had worked an  eight-hour day on July 8.  Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff or other Analysts on a  salary basis, such that they have not been exempt from overtime under federal or state law while  they have worked as Analysts for Defendant.    16.  Defendant has been aware of the requirement to pay Plaintiff and other Analysts  their regular rate for all hours worked and the requirement to pay time and one-half overtime  compensation to employees who are not paid on a salary basis.     17.  Defendant’s knowledge of the legal requirement to pay employees overtime when  they are not paid on a salary basis is directly relevant here because Defendant will not be able to  make the good faith showing required to avoid an award of double liquidated damages under the  19.  Plaintiff brings her First Claim For Relief for violations of the FLSA as a  collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of the  FLSA Collective Action Members, who include all persons nationwide who have worked for  Defendant as Analysts within the applicable statutory time period.    20.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action Members are similarly situated because  they are subject to Defendant’s common practice of unlawfully paying straight time rates for  overtime work hours even though they are not paid on a salary basis.   22.  The names and addresses of the FLSA Collective Action Members are available  from Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff prays herein for an order requiring Defendant to provide  the names and all available contact information for all FLSA Collective Action Members, so  notice can be provided to them of the pendency of this action, and their right to opt-in to this  action.   23.  Plaintiff brings all claims alleged herein under New York law as a statewide class  action on behalf of all persons who worked for Defendant in New York as Analysts during the  time period covered herein.  Plaintiff seeks to certify a class pursuant to the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure, Rule 23 comprised of:   All persons who are or have worked as CRM Business Analysts for Defendant in the  State of New York during the period commencing six years from the filing of this action  through the entry of final judgment in this action.     24.  The class claims herein have been brought and may properly be maintained as a  class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because (1) the class is so  numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law and or  fact common to the class; (3) the claims of the proposed class representatives are typical of the  claims of the class; and (4) the proposed class representative and her counsel will fairly and  adequately protect the interests of the class.  In addition, the questions of law or fact that are  common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members  and a class action is superior to other available means for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the  controversy.   27.  Typicality:  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other New York  Class Members. Defendant’s common course of unlawful conduct has caused Plaintiff and  similarly situated New York Class Members to sustain the same or similar injuries and damages  caused by the same practices of Defendant. Plaintiff’s claims are thereby representative of and  co-extensive with the claims of the other New York Class Members.   28.  Adequacy of Representation:  Plaintiff is a member of the Rule 23 Class defined  herein, does not have any conflicts of interest with other New York Class Members, and will  prosecute the case vigorously on behalf of the Class. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent  and protect the interests of the New York Class Members. Plaintiff’s counsel are competent and  experienced in litigating large employment class actions, including large wage and hour class  actions.     29.  Superiority:  The expense and burden of individual litigation by each member  makes or make it impractical for New York Class Members to seek redress individually for the  wrongful conduct alleged herein. Should separate actions be brought, or be required to be  brought, by each individual New York Class Member, the resulting multiplicity of lawsuits  would cause undue hardship and expense for the Court and the litigants. The prosecution of  separate actions would also create a risk of inconsistent rulings, which might be dispositive of  the interests of other New York Class Members who are parties to the adjudication and/or may  substantially impede their ability to adequately protect their interests.  47.  The allegations of each of the preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and  incorporated herein by reference, and Plaintiff alleges as follows a claim of relief on behalf of  herself and the above-described Rule 23 Class of similarly situated New York Class Members.   49.  At all relevant times, Defendant was aware of, and under a duty to comply with,  the overtime provisions of New York Labor Law and its enacting regulations including, but not  limited to, N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS., tit. 12, § 142-2.2.   50.  N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS., tit. 12, § 142-2.2 provides, in pertinent part:   An employer shall pay an employee for overtime at a wage rate of one and one-half times  the employee's regular rate in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the  exemptions of Section 7 and Section 13 of 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., the Fair Labor  Standards Act of 1938, as amended . . . .  The FLSA, in turn, requires each covered employer, such as Defendant, to compensate all non- exempt employees at the rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for  work performed in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek.    51.  N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS., tit. 12, §142-2.9 provides that “[t]he  minimum and overtime wage provided by this Part shall be required for each week of work,  regardless of the frequency of payment, whether the wage is on a commission, bonus, piece rate,  or any other basis.”   52.  During the New York Class Period, Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiff  and New York Class Members for all of the overtime wages earned, in violation of N.Y. COMP.  CODES R. & REGS., tit. 12, §§ 142-2.2, 142-2.9.    53.  By refusing to compensate Plaintiff and New York Class Members for overtime  wages earned, Defendant violated the New York Labor Law provisions and enacting regulations  cited herein.   FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION  (FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 29 U.S.C. § 201, ET SEQ.)  (ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND   UNLAWFUL FAILURE TO PAY WAGES  (N.Y. LAB. LAW § 191)  (ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND  UNLAWFUL FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES  (N.Y. COMP. CODES R & REGS., tit. 12, §§ 142-2.2, 142-2.9)  (ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND NEW YORK CLASS MEMBERS)  