14.  Defendant Global 7 Environmental, Health & Safety Corporation provides safety  and environmental monitoring services to its customers in the energy and manufacturing sectors.   15.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a safety representative from approximately  November of 2018 to January of 2020.   16.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Texas.   17.  Defendant classified Plaintiff as an employee.    18.  The work of a safety representative is essentially inspection work.  Plaintiff was  responsible for monitoring the work of Defendant’s clients to ensure that work met applicable  safety and environmental requirements.   19.  For his labor, Defendant paid Plaintiff a day rate but did not pay him overtime for  his hours in excess of forty per week.  In other words, Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as exempt.   20.  Plaintiff was paid a day-rate.    21.  Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee.    23.  Plaintiff and other safety representatives commonly work in excess of 12 hours  each day.     24.  Safety representatives usually work five to six days each week, for a schedule that  equates into workweeks well exceeding 40 hours.   25.  However, despite working overtime hours, Defendant does not pay its safety  representatives overtime because it pays the same flat day rate regardless on the number of hours  worked.     26.  Defendant also paid Plaintiff and all other safety representatives per diem and  mileage in an amount that exceeds the reasonable reimbursement value for the legitimate work  related expenses.    27.  No exemption in the FLSA shelters Defendant from paying overtime to its safety  representatives.   28.  Safety representatives like Plaintiff are not guaranteed a set number of days to work  per week.   29.  Safety representatives like Plaintiff are not guaranteed a set weekly payment.   30.  Safety representatives are paid on a day rate basis, not on a salary basis.    31.  Plaintiff was paid on a day rate basis, not on a salary basis.    32.  Plaintiff was not paid time-and-a-half for all hours worked over forty in a given  workweek.    34.  Other safety representatives employed by Defendant worked overtime as defined  in the FLSA.    35.  Because safety representatives are on a day rate, the executive, administrative, or  professional exemptions cannot apply.  See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.100, 541.200, 541.300.      36.  Safety representatives do not supervise other employees or manage a customarily  recognized department of Defendant’s company.   37.  Safety representatives have no authority to hire or fire other employees.   38.  Safety representatives are field employees, not office employees.  They perform  work related to Defendant’s core business, not the management of the company’s operations.   39.  The primary duty of a safety representative does not require independent judgment  or discretion.  Instead, safety representatives are required to carry out their work according to  detailed step-by-step procedures promulgated by Defendant or Defendant’s customers.   40.  Despite these facts, Defendant misclassified its safety representatives as exempt  from overtime pay.   41.  As a result of Defendant’s pay policies, Plaintiff and other safety representatives  were denied overtime pay.   42.  Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether Plaintiff and the other  safety representatives were entitled to overtime pay under the law.    43.   Plaintiff incorporates all allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.    45.   None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA regulating the duty of employers  to pay overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which its employees  are paid are applicable to Defendant, Plaintiff, or the FLSA Class Members.    46.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.   47.  Plaintiff has actual knowledge that FLSA Class Members have also been denied  overtime pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek as a result of Defendant’s  misclassification of its employees.     48. Plaintiff’s knowledge is based on his personal work experience and through  communications with other workers of Defendant.  Plaintiff personally worked with other safety  representatives under the same compensation structure at multiple job sites for Defendant.   49.  Other workers similarly situated to the Plaintiff worked for Defendant throughout  the United States but were not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half their regular rates of  pay when those hours exceeded forty (40) hours in a workweek.     50.  Although Defendant permitted and/or required FLSA Class Members to work in  excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek, Defendant denied them full compensation for their hours  worked over forty (40).   51.  Defendant misclassified and continues to misclassify FLSA Class Members as  exempt employees.     53.  Plaintiff had the same job duties as other employees of Defendant who had the same  job title as Plaintiff and worked for Defendant at any time during the three years prior to the filing  of this lawsuit.    54.  FLSA Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime pay under the FLSA.   55.  As such, FLSA Class Members are similar to Plaintiff in terms of relevant job  duties, pay structure, misclassification as exempt employees and/or the denial of overtime pay.   56.  Defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation at the rate required by the FLSA  results from generally applicable policies or practices and does not depend on the personal  circumstances of any FLSA Class Member.   57.  Defendant employed at least 20 other safety representatives within the last 3 years  who were paid on a day rate.    58.  Defendant employed at least 100 other safety representatives within the last 3 years  who were paid on a day rate.    59.  Defendant employed at least 40 other employees with the same job title as Plaintiff  who were not paid overtime.    60.  Defendant employed at least 50 other employees with the same job title as Plaintiff  who worked overtime for at least one week during their employment with Defendant and were not  paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked.    61.  The experiences of Plaintiff, with respect to his pay, hours, and duties are typical  of the experiences of the FLSA Class Members.   63.  All FLSA Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are  entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.   64.  Although the exact amount of damages may vary among the 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.    65.  As such, the class of similarly situated Plaintiffs for the FLSA Class is properly  defined as follows:   All current and former employees who worked for Defendant at any  time during the three-year period before the filing of this Complaint  to present that were paid a day rate.     