13.  Defendant Pipeline Safety, L.L.C. is a pipeline services company that inspection,  safety, and document management services to pipeline companies.     14.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an NDE (Non-Destructive Examination) Auditor  from 2012 until 2016.   15.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant in multiple states for multiple clients, including in  Louisiana, Ohio, and New York.     16.  Plaintiff was responsible for performing visual inspections, non-destructive testing,  and X-ray verification of the welds on pipelines owned and operated by Defendant’s customers.     17.  Defendant classified Plaintiff as an employee.    18.  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.   19.  Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee.    20.  Defendant paid dozens of other auditors or inspectors classified as employees  throughout the United States on the same day rate compensation system as Plaintiff.   21.  Plaintiff and other auditors or inspectors commonly work in excess of 12 hours each  day.     23.  However, despite working overtime hours, Defendant does not pay its auditors or  inspectors overtime because it pays the same flat day rate regardless on the number of hours  worked.     24.  No exemption in the FLSA shelters Defendant from paying overtime to its auditors  or inspectors.   25.  Auditors or inspectors like Plaintiff are not guaranteed a set number of days to work  per week.   26.  Auditors or inspectors like Plaintiff are not guaranteed a set weekly payment.   27.  Auditors or inspectors are paid on a day rate basis, not on a salary basis.    28.  Plaintiff was paid on a day rate basis, not on a salary basis.    29.  Plaintiff was not paid time-and-a-half for all hours worked over forty in a given  workweek.    30.  Plaintiff worked overtime as defined in the FLSA.    31.  Other auditors or inspectors employed by Defendant worked overtime as defined  in the FLSA.    32.  Because auditors or inspectors are paid on a day rate, the executive, administrative,  or professional exemptions cannot apply.  See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.100, 541.200, 541.300.      33.  Auditors or inspectors do not supervise other employees or manage a customarily  recognized department of Defendant’s company.   34.  Auditors or inspectors have no authority to hire or fire other employees.   36.  Auditors or inspectors also perform extensive physical labor to perform their  inspection work.   37.  The primary duty of an auditors or inspectors does not require independent  judgment or discretion.  Instead, auditors or inspectors are required to carry out their inspections  according to detailed step-by-step procedures promulgated by Defendant or Defendant’s  customers.   38.  The FLSA’s regulations even provide that inspection work is non-exempt work:  Ordinary inspection work generally does not meet the duties  requirements for the administrative exemption.  Inspectors normally  perform specialized work along standardized lines involving well- established techniques and procedures which may have been  catalogued and described in manuals and other sources.  Such  inspectors rely on techniques and skills acquired by special training  or experience.  They have some leeway in the performance of their  work but only within closely prescribed limits.  29 C.F.R. 541.203(g).     39.  Auditors or inspectors are not computer-systems analysts, computer programmers,  software engineers, or other similar employees.     40.  Despite these facts, Defendant misclassified its auditors or inspectors as exempt  from overtime pay.   41.  As a result of Defendant’s pay policies, Plaintiff and other auditors or inspectors  were denied overtime pay.   42.  Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether Plaintiff and the other  auditors or inspectors were entitled to overtime pay under the law.    44.   Defendant’s practice of failing to pay Plaintiff time-and-a-half for all hours worked  in excess of forty (40) per workweek violates the FLSA.  29 U.S.C. § 207.      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 auditors  or inspectors 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 auditors or inspectors within the last 3 years  who were paid on a day rate.    58.  Defendant employed at least 100 other auditors or inspectors 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 auditors or inspectors, and all employees  with substantially similar duties, 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.     