18.  Defendants constitute an oilfield services company that operates throughout  the United States including in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, and North Dakota.   19.  Plaintiff Meals worked for Defendants in oilfields in Pennsylvania as a SEO  II from approximately March 2013 to April 2014.   20.  Plaintiff Meals then worked for Defendants as a Treater in Training from  approximately April 2014 to November 2015.     21.  Defendants paid Plaintiff an hourly rate while he worked for Defendants in  these jobs.  He routinely worked more than 40 hours each week.   22.  In addition to his hourly rate of pay, Defendants also paid Plaintiff, FLSA  Bonus Class Members, and Pennsylvania Bonus Class Members a job bonus. This job bonus  is a non-discretionary payment.   23.  The job bonus is non-discretionary because Defendants based the bonus  amount on the number of completions an operator performs in the field and the revenue  Defendants derived from a job at an oil well.  Typically, Defendants paid the bonus once a  month.   24.  The job bonus represents a significant portion of Plaintiff’s, FLSA Bonus  Class Members’, and Pennsylvania Bonus Class Members’ earnings.   Often the bonus  payments are equal to or exceed what Defendants paid these employees monthly for the  hourly earnings.   26.  By failing to do so, Defendants paid overtime at an artificially lower rate than  what the law requires, and thus violated the FLSA and Pennsylvania state law.   27.  Plaintiff, the FLSA Bonus Class Members, and the Pennsylvania Bonus Class  Members are required to work well in excess of forty (40) hours a week. A typical work  schedule demands that such workers put in more than eighty (80) hours per week.   28.  Plaintiff, the FLSA Bonus Class Members, and the Pennsylvania Bonus Class  Members are not exempt employees under the FLSA or the PMWA.   29.  Defendants classifies Plaintiff, the FLSA Bonus Class Members, and the  Pennsylvania Bonus Class Members as non-exempt employees.   30.  Defendants employed Plaintiff as a Supervisor I from approximately  November 2015 to March 2016.   31.  Defendants paid Plaintiff a salary no matter how many hours he worked per  week plus a bonus.   32.  Defendants did not pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff while Defendants  employed him as a Supervisor I.   33.  Likewise, Defendants did not pay overtime compensation to other Supervisor  Is Defendants employed.   35.  Defendants knew Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class Members, and the  Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members worked more than forty hours in a week because  Defendants expected them to perform work in the oil fields from early in the morning to well  into the evening and on weekends.  Defendants’ managers also witnessed them working these  long hours in the oil fields.   36.  Defendants uniformly denied Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class  Members, and the Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members overtime pay.   37.  Defendants treated/classified Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class  Members, and the Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members as exempt employees, and  therefore did not pay them all overtime compensation to which they are entitled, even though  they routinely worked overtime hours. Defendants uniformly applied this policy and practice  to all Supervisor Is.   38.  Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class Members, and the Pennsylvania  Supervisor I Class Members are and were non-exempt employees who are and were entitled  to overtime pay.   39.  Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class Members, and the Pennsylvania  Supervisor I Class Members performed oil field manual production work, the same work  performed by non-exempt, hourly employees.   40.  Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class Members, and the Pennsylvania  Supervisor I Class Members did not perform duties which qualify for any “white collar”  exemption or any other exemption.   41.  Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class Members, and the Pennsylvania  Supervisor I Class Members did not regularly supervise the work of two or more employees.   43.  Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class Members, and the Pennsylvania  Supervisor I Class Members did not perform office work related to Defendants’ general  business operations or its customers.   44.  Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class Members, and the Pennsylvania  Supervisor I Class Members had no advance knowledge in a field of science or learning  which required specialized instruction that was required to perform the job.   45.  Defendants do not require Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class Members,  and the Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members to have a college degree to obtain a  Supervisor I job.   46.  All Supervisor Is are similarly situated in that they share common job duties  and descriptions, Defendants treated them as exempt employees at relevant times, and they  all performed work without overtime compensation.   47.  Because Defendants did not pay Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class  Members, and the Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members for all the hours they worked  including overtime hours, Defendants’ wage statements did not accurately reflect  compensation that Defendants was legally required to pay Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I  Class Members, and the Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members for hours they worked.   48.  Defendants thus did not provide Plaintiff, the FLSA Supervisor I Class  Members, and the Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members with accurate paychecks.   50.  Defendants’ actions in this case were willful and in bad faith. Defendants  knew the requirement to pay overtime at the rate of time and one half the regular rates of pay  of its employees but intentionally and/or willfully chose to ignore such requirements.  Defendants also knew or should have known that the job bonuses were non-discretionary.  Defendants intentionally and/or willfully chose to ignore the requirement to include such  payments in the regular rate of pay.  Defendants likewise knew or should have known that the  Supervisor Is were misclassified production employees to whom Defendants was legally  required to pay overtime compensation.   51.  Moreover, Defendants have been sued several times for like wage and hour  violations including in this District.  52.  Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated  employees as authorized under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  The similarly situated  employees are:  All current and former employees paid on an hourly basis with paid bonuses   who worked in the United States at any time within the last three years up to   the entry of judgment in this case (the “FLSA Bonus Class”).   53.  Plaintiff knows that FLSA Bonus Class Members exist who have been denied  the FLSA’s overtime premium by being subjected to the same illegal pay practices described  above. Plaintiff’s knowledge is based on working and talking with other employees of  Defendants.   54.  The FLSA Bonus Class Members are similarly situated to Plaintiff in that they  share the same/similar duties and were subject to the same pay policies.   56.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the FLSA Bonus Class Members were subject to  Defendants’ policy, decision, and/or plan of failing to pay appropriate overtime  compensation because Defendants failed to include paid bonuses into the regular rate of pay.   57.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate  Plaintiff and the FLSA Bonus Class, and as such, notice should be sent to the FLSA Bonus.  There are numerous similarly situated, current and former employees of Defendants who  have been denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance  of a Court supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join. Those  similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and are readily identifiable through  Defendants’ records.   58.  Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated  employees as authorized under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  The similarly situated  employees are:  All current and former Supervisor I employees who Defendants designated as    exempt and who worked in the United States at any time within the last  three years up to the entry of judgment in this case (the “FLSA Supervisor  I Class”).   59.  Plaintiff knows that FLSA Supervisor I Class Members exist who have been  denied the FLSA’s overtime premium by being subjected to the same illegal pay practices  described above.  Plaintiff’s knowledge is based on working and talking with other  employees of Defendants.   60.  The FLSA Supervisors I Class Members are similarly situated to Plaintiff in  that they share the same/similar duties and were subject to the same pay policies.   62.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the FLSA Supervisor I Class Members were subject  to Defendants’ policy, decision, and/or plan of failing to pay appropriate overtime  compensation because Defendants designated them as exempt.   63.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate  Plaintiff and the FLSA Supervisor I Class, and as such, notice should be sent to the FLSA  Supervisor I Class. There are numerous similarly situated, current and former employees of  Defendants who have been denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA who would benefit  from the issuance of a Court supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the opportunity to  join. Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and are readily identifiable  through Defendants’ records.  64.  Plaintiff sues on his own behalf and on behalf of the Pennsylvania Bonus  Class Members and Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(a) and (b)(3).   65.  Defendants violated the PMWA by failing pay overtime at the legally  mandated rate of time and one half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked by failing to  pay overtime on a regular rate of pay inclusive of the bonuses.    66.  The Pennsylvania Bonus Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable. The number of Pennsylvania Bonus Class Members is believed to number  over 30. These similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, are readily  identifiable, and can be located through Defendants’ records.   68.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Pennsylvania Bonus Class  Members.  Plaintiff and Pennsylvania Bonus Class Members work or have worked for  Defendants in the same/similar job, performing substantially the same work, and have been  subjected to Defendants’ common practice and policy of failing to properly pay the  appropriate overtime rate by failing to include bonuses in the regular rate of pay for overtime  calculation purposes.   69.  Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Pennsylvania Bonus Class Members as a whole by engaging in the same violations of law  with respect to the Pennsylvania Bonus Class Members, thereby making any final relief  appropriate with respect to the Pennsylvania Bonus Class as a whole.   70.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  Pennsylvania Bonus Class.   71.  Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex wage  and hour litigation and class and collective action litigation.   73.  Defendants likewise violated the PMWA by misclassifying Supervisor I  employees as exempt from overtime compensation and thus failing pay overtime at the  legally mandated rate of time and one half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked  inclusive of the bonuses.    74.  The Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable. The number of Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members is  believed to number over 30. These similarly situated employees are known to Defendants,  are readily identifiable, and can be located through Defendants’ records.   75.  There are common questions of law and fact common to the members of the  Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class that predominate over any questions solely affecting the  individual members of the Class, including, without limitation:  a. Whether Defendants classified Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania Supervisor I  Class Members as exempt and thus failed to pay them the legally required  overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week;  b. Whether Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania Supervisor I  Class Members as exempt; and  c. Whether Defendants is liable for all damages claimed by Plaintiff and  Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members, including, without limitation,  compensatory, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.   77.  Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members as a whole by engaging in the same violations of  law with respect to the Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members, thereby making any final  relief appropriate with respect to the Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class as a whole.   78.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class.   79.  Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex wage  and hour litigation and class and collective action litigation.   80.  Defendants has damaged the Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members.  They  are entitled to recover damages as a result of Defendants’ common and uniform policies,  practices, and procedures.   81.  A Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this case, particularly in the context of wage litigation such as the instant case  where individual workers lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in  federal court against a large company, such as Defendants.   82.  Furthermore, class treatment is superior because it will obviate the need for  unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments about Defendants’  practices.  83.  Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs of this Complaint into this Count.   88.  Plaintiff incorporate the above paragraphs of this Complaint into this Count.   89.  Defendants’ practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and FLSA Supervisor I Class  Members overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rate for all  hours over forty (40) violates the FLSA because Defendants designated them as exempt and  failed to pay them overtime. See 29 U.S.C. § 207.   90.  None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA are applicable to the  Defendants, or to the Plaintiff and FLSA Supervisor I Class Members.   91.  Defendants has not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA.  Defendants’ method of paying Plaintiff and FLSA Class Members in violation of the FLSA  was willful and was not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that its conduct    did  not violate the FLSA. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of  the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).  93.  The PMWA requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not less  than one and one-half times” the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40  in a workweek. See 43 P.S. § 333.104(c). Under the PMWA, the regular rate of pay “shall be  deemed to include all remuneration for employment.”  34 Pa. Code § 231.43.   94.  Defendants violated the PMWA by failing to include all remuneration in the  regular rate of Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania Bonus Class Members by excluding the bonus  payments.   95.  Defendants are an employer covered by the PMWA’s mandates, and Plaintiff  and the other Pennsylvania Bonus Class Members are employees entitled to the PMWA’s    protections.   96.  As described above, Defendants violated the PMWA by paying overtime in a  manner that is not permissible under Pennsylvania law.   97.  Due to Defendants’ PMWA violations, Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania Bonus  Class Members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime compensation  for all hours worked by them in excess of forty in a workweek and reasonable attorney’s fees  and costs, pursuant to the PMWA.  98.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.   Collective Action under § 2 1 6 ( b )  o f  t h e  Fair Labor Standards Act  Overtime Claims – FLSA Supervisor I Class   Collective Action under § 2 1 6 ( b )  o f  t h e  Fair Labor Standards Act  Overtime Claims – FLSA Bonus Class   Rule 23 Class Action -- Violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act  Overtime Claims -- Pennsylvania Bonus Class Members   Rule 23 Class Action -- Violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act  Overtime Claims -- Pennsylvania Supervisor I Class Members  