3.1. Defendant is a service company providing security services to various commercial  businesses in Colorado. Defendant is in the commercial support service industry as  defined in the Wage Claim Act.   3.2. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a security guard providing security services to  commercial firms in Colorado.   3.3. Although Plaintiff was required to work overtime hours, and did so frequently, Plaintiff  was not compensated at the mandated time and one-half rate for all these overtime  hours. Given the nature of Plaintiff’s work, no overtime exemption applies to Plaintiff.   3.4. For example, during the week of January 8, 2019 through January 15, 2019 Plaintiff  worked 58 hours.  He was paid straight time for 50 hours at $16.00 per hour and  overtime for only 8 of those hours at $24.00 per hour.  Plaintiff should have been paid at  the overtime rate for all 18 hours over 40 worked in that workweek.   3.5. It was a routine practice of Defendant not to pay overtime of all hours over 40 in a  workweek.  All of the security guards employed by Defendant were subject to this illegal  policy.   4.1. Plaintiff brings this action as a FED. R. CIV. P. 23 class action, on behalf of himself and  on behalf of a Class for which Plaintiff seeks certification. Pending any modifications  necessitated by discovery, Plaintiff preliminarily defines this Class as follows:  All security guards employed by Defendant beginning three years prior to the date  of the filing of this lawsuit.   4.2.3. The claims asserted by Plaintiff are typical of the claims of Class Members and the  Class is readily ascertainable from Defendant’s own records. A class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.   4.2.1. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable.  Plaintiff is informed and believes that the number of Class Members exceeds fifty.   4.2.4. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of Class Members. The  interests of Class Members are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of  Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff is represented by experienced class action counsel.   4.2. This action is properly brought as a class action for the following reasons:   4.2.2. Numerous questions of law and fact regarding the liability of Defendant are  common to the Class and predominate over any individual issues which may exist.   4.3. Plaintiff also seeks certification of an FLSA “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29  U.S.C. §216(b) for all claims asserted by Plaintiff because his claims are nearly identical  to those of other Class Members. Plaintiff and Class Members are similarly situated,  have substantially similar or identical job requirements and pay provisions, and were  subjected to Defendant’s common practice, policy or plan regarding employee wages and  hours.   5. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – Collective Action (Violation of the Fair Labor  Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq.)   5.10.  As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members has been damaged in an amount to be  determined at trial.   5.2. At all relevant times, each Defendant has been, and continues to be, an “employer”  within the meaning of the FLSA.   5.3. Defendant is an enterprise engaged in interstate “commerce” and/or in the production  of “goods” for “commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA.   5.4. At all relevant times, Defendant has had gross annual volume of sales in excess of  $500,000.   5.5. At all relevant times, Defendant has employed, and continues to employ, non-exempt  “employees,” including Plaintiff. Plaintiff consents to sue in this action pursuant to 29  U.S.C. §216(b).   5.6. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA.   5.7. While employed by Defendant, Plaintiff was engaged in commerce or in the production  of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA. Plaintiff and the Class Members  specifically handled and used materials that traveled in interstate commerce.   5.8.3. the interstate telephone systems, landline and cellular, to recruit and employ  individuals for operational positions;    5.8. Two or more of Defendant’s employees, engage in commerce by using equipment that has  traveled in interstate commerce.  By way of example and not by limitation, Defendant’s  employees used/use:   5.8.2. office equipment, such as copiers, that has been manufactured and shipped across  state lines;    5.8.4. The United States postal system to send mail across state lines; and   5.8.5.  the interstate banking systems to pay Defendant’s employees.   5.8.1. computers and telecommunications equipment that has been manufactured and  shipped across state lines;   6. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF – Class Action (Violation of the Colorado Wage Claim  Act, §8-4-101, et seq.)   6.1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs.   6.2. At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an “employer” within  the meaning of the Wage Claim Act.   6.3. At all relevant times, Defendant has employed, and continues to employ, “employees”,  including Plaintiff, within the meaning of the Wage Claim Act.   6.4. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant within the meaning of the Wage Claim Act.   6.5. Defendant violated the Wage Claim Act as implemented by the Wage Order, when it  failed to pay Plaintiff and others overtime wages for hours worked over forty in each  given workweek. 7 CCR 1103-1(4).   6.6. Defendant violated the Wage Claim Act as implemented by the Wage Order, when it  failed to pay Plaintiff and others overtime wages for hours worked over twelve in each  given work day. 7 CCR 1103-1(4).   6.7. As a result of the foregoing conduct, as alleged, Defendant has failed to pay wages due  under the Wage Claim Act, the FLSA and the Minimum Wage Act, thereby violating,  and continuing to violate, the Wage Claim Act. These violations were committed  knowingly, willfully and with reckless disregard of applicable law.   6.8. As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff  hereby demands payment on behalf of himself and all Class Members in an amount  sufficient to provide compensation for all overtime hours worked. This demand for  payment is continuing and is made on behalf of any current Defendant employees whose  employment terminates at any time in the future. Such payment can be made care of  undersigned counsel at the listed address.   7.1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs.   7.2. At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an “employer” within  the meaning of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.   7.3. At all relevant times, Defendant has employed, and continues to employ, “employees”,  including Plaintiff, within the meaning of the Minimum Wage Act.   7.4. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant within the meaning of the Minimum Wage Act.   7.5. Defendant failed to pay overtime as required by the Minimum Wage Act.   7.6. As a result of the foregoing conduct, as alleged, Defendant has violated, and continues to  violate, the Minimum Wage Act. These violations were committed knowingly, willfully  and with reckless disregard of applicable law.   7.7. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged in an amount to be  determined at trial. 