(Collective Action under § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Unpaid Overtime)   (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Action under the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for  Unpaid Overtime Against Defendants Interthinx and Verisk)   12.  Interthinx promotes itself as a “provider of comprehensive risk mitigation  solutions focusing on mortgage fraud, collateral risk and valuation, regulatory compliance,  forensic loan audit services, loss mitigation, and loss forecasting.”  See www.interthinx.com.   13.  On October 12, 2007, Interthinx acquired NIA Consulting, Ltd. (“NIA”), which  became a division of Interthinx.  After the acquisition, NIA employees became employees of  Interthinx.   14.  Interthinx employed, and continues to employ, Fraud Auditors, Analysts, and  Underwriters (collectively “Fraud Detection Employees”) throughout the United States.  The  primary job responsibilities of Fraud Detection Employees are verifying the accuracy of  mortgage loan documents, processing defaulted mortgage loan files, and auditing defaulted  mortgage loans.      16.  The Fraud Detection Employees are nonexempt under the FLSA and the  applicable Colorado Minimum Wage Order (“Wage Order”), 7 CCR § 1103, as well as other  state wage and hour laws nationwide.   17.  Interthinx pays its Fraud Detection Employees under the same or similar  compensation structure.  Interthinx pays its Fraud Detection Employees a salary and  commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses which are calculated as a percentage of the total revenue  derived from the employee’s review of mortgage loan files.     18.  Defendants classified, and continue to classify, all Fraud Detection Employees as  exempt and, thus, not entitled to receive overtime compensation.  In particular, Interthinx  functionally requires these employees to perform work well in excess of eight (8) hours per day  and/or forty (40) hours per week but fails to pay them overtime by illegally classifying all such  employees as exempt from overtime requirements.   19.  In fact, Interthinx required, and continues to require, its Fraud Detection  Employees to review a certain minimum number of mortgage files per week.  Most Fraud  Detection Employees must work in excess of forty (40) hours per week to meet this minimum  production standard imposed by Interthinx, but they are not paid overtime for these hours.   21.  Interthinx failed, and continues to fail, to accurately record the actual time worked  by all Fraud Detection Employees.  Interthinx could have, and can, easily and accurately record  the actual time worked by all Fraud Detection Employees because, among other things, Fraud  Detection Employees spent, and continue to spend, a significant amount of their work time at  Interthinx’s offices.   22.  In light of Interthinx’s failure to accurately record time worked by all Fraud  Detection Employees, Interthinx failed to provide accurate wage statements to all Fraud  Detection Employees.   23.  Additionally, Interthinx has, on at least one occasion, retroactively changed the  formula with which it calculates the Fraud Detection Employees’ commissions/non-discretionary  bonuses, resulting in Fraud Detection Employees not receiving significant earned, vested, and  determinable commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses.   24.  Plaintiff Shaw is employed by Interthinx as a Fraud Detection Employee at its  office in Colorado Springs, CO.  Plaintiff Shaw has been employed by Interthinx since January  28, 2008.   25.  Since she has been employed by Interthinx, Plaintiff Shaw routinely worked in  excess of forty (40) hours per week and some weeks in excess of sixty (60) hours.    27.  This retroactive change in the formula resulted in nonpayment of more than  $1,200 in earned commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses which Plaintiff Shaw was entitled to  receive.   28.  Upon information and belief, Verisk exercised substantial control over the human  resources and pay practices of Interthinx, along with its finances and operations, including, but  not limited to, the formula and the manner with which Fraud Detection Employees were  compensated by Interthinx.  In fact, Interthinx’s employees received their pay checks from  Verisk.  As such, Verisk is a joint employer of the Fraud Detection Employees and liable for  Interthinx’s illegal pay practices.   29.  Upon information and belief, Moyer is responsible for Interthinx’s pay practices  and exercises substantial control over its finances and operations.  As such, Moyer is individually  liable for Interthinx’s illegal pay practices.   30.  Defendants’ illegal wage and hour practices are willful violations.  Among other  things, Interthinx was previously sued in 2009 for similar wage and hour violations in a case  entitled Renata Gluzman, et al. v. Interthinx, Case No. BC419743, Superior Court of California  for the County of Los Angeles (August 13, 2009).   32.  Defendants have ignored the above lawsuit and complaints and failed to correct  the manner in which Fraud Detection Employees are compensated, including refusing to pay  them overtime compensation and their earned commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses.   33.  Interthinx’s deliberate illegal classification of its Fraud Detection Employees as  exempt from overtime requirements results in Interthinx willfully violating the FLSA, the  Colorado Wage Act (“Wage Act”), Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-4-101, et seq., and the applicable  Colorado Wage Order, as well as other state wage and hour laws nationwide.  34.  Plaintiff Shaw hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this  Complaint.   35.  The FLSA Named Plaintiff brings this Complaint as a collective action pursuant  to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA seeking to recover all unpaid overtime compensation and  related penalties and damages pursuant to the FLSA.     37.  The number and identities of other plaintiffs yet to opt-in and consent to be party  plaintiffs are currently unknown but may be determined from Interthinx’s records.  Potential  class members may easily and quickly be notified of the pendency of this action.   38.  Plaintiff Shaw consents in writing to be a party to this action pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).  Plaintiff Shaw’s Consent to become a Party Plaintiff pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  226(b) is attached as an exhibit.   39.  Two other Fraud Detection Employees have opted in this lawsuit and their  Consents to become a Party Plaintiff are attached as exhibits.   40.  At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continue to be, “employer[s]”  engaged in interstate “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for “commerce” within  the meaning of the FLSA.  At all relevant times, Defendants have employed, and/or continue to  employ, “employee[s],” including Plaintiff Shaw and all other similarly situated current and  former employees.  At all relevant times, Defendants have had gross operating revenues in  excess of $500,000 which is the threshold test for the “enterprise” requirement under the FLSA.   41.  At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continue to be, subject to the  overtime pay requirements of the FLSA because their employees are engaged in interstate  commerce, their employees are engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce, and  they are an enterprise engaged in commerce and the production of goods for interstate  commerce.   43.  Like the FLSA Named Plaintiff, Defendants employ or employed numerous other  Fraud Detection Employees at locations throughout the United States.  This includes, but is not  limited to, the following positions: Fraud Auditor, Fraud Analyst, Processor, and Underwriter.   All such positions are hereby referred to as the “putative representative action plaintiffs.”   44.  Defendants compensate or compensated the putative representative action  plaintiffs as exempt employees under the FLSA and not entitled to receive overtime.  Defendants  compensate or compensated the putative representative action plaintiffs by paying them  commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses and/or draws against commissions/nondiscretionary  bonuses.   45.  FLSA Named Plaintiff and putative representative action plaintiffs do not or did  not perform job duties or tasks which permit them to be exempt from overtime compensation as  required under the FLSA.   46.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and putative representative action plaintiffs have  been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA.   48.  Furthermore, all putative representative action plaintiffs are similarly situated in  that they are or were all subject to Defendants’ same compensation policy, plan, or procedure  which requires or required them to perform work and/or requires or required them to be present  at work while compensating them, at least in part, on a commission/non-discretionary bonus  structure and/or draw against commission/non-discretionary bonus structure without paying them  overtime.  This denies the putative representative action plaintiffs’ compensation for services  performed, and denies them their overtime compensation.   49.  Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the putative representative action  plaintiffs at a 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, and therefore, Defendants have violated,  and continue to violate, the FLSA, including 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   50.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged herein including but not limited to being  previously sued for the same violations alleged in this Complaint and ignoring complaints by  employees regarding a failure to be paid overtime premiums, constitutes a willful violation of the  FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   52.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees of Defendants  who comprise putative representative action plaintiffs, seeks recovery of all attorneys’ fees,  costs, and expenses of this action, to be paid by Defendants, as provided by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b).   54.  Plaintiff Shaw hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this  Complaint.   56.  The members of one above class shall be referred to as the “Colorado Overtime  Class Members.”   57.  The Named Colorado Overtime Class Representative, individually and on behalf  of the above Colorado Overtime Class Members, brings a class action based on the Colorado  Wage Act and Wage Order.  These state law claims, if certified for class wide treatment, may be  pursued by all similarly situated persons who do not opt-out of the class.   58.  At all relevant times, Defendants Interthinx and Verisk have been, and continue to  be, “employer[s]” as defined under the Wage Act and Wage Order.  At all relevant times,  Defendants Interthinx and Verisk have employed, and/or continue to employ, “employee[s],”  including Plaintiffs and all similarly situated current and former employees.   59.  The Named Colorado Overtime Class Representative and the Colorado Overtime  Class Members are all similarly situated in that they shared common job duties and descriptions,  and all were all subject to Defendants’ policy which classified them as exempt and denied them  overtime for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, which violates the  Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order.   61.  In particular, the Colorado Minimum Wage Order requires that Defendants pay  their non-exempt, hourly employees time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours  worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, all hours worked in excess of twelve (12)  hours in any workday, and all hours worked more than twelve (12) consecutive hours regardless  of the work day, whichever calculation results in the greater payment of wages.   62.  The Named Colorado Overtime Class Representative and the Colorado Overtime  Class Members are non-exempt employees entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all  hours which qualify under the Wage Order.   63.  Interthinx’s conduct denies such persons overtime pay and is a direct violation of  the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order.   64.  Because Defendants failed to properly pay overtime as required by Colorado law,  the Named Colorado Overtime Class Representative and the Colorado Overtime Class Members  are entitled to all overtime compensation due to them at a rate of one and one-half times their  regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in the past three years and reasonable attorneys’  fees.   65.  Defendant Verisk is individually liable for the illegal pay practices of Interthinx.   67.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this  Complaint.   68.  The Named Colorado Bonus Class Representative brings this claim as a class  action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), seeking to recover damages and related penalties  pursuant to the Colorado Wage Act, on behalf of herself and the following class of persons:  All current and former Fraud Auditors, Fraud Analysts, Processors,  and Underwriter employees of Defendants who will, are, or have  worked at Interthinx’s office location in Colorado at any time  during the last three years, who were subject to Defendants’  unlawful compensation policies of failing to pay all earned, vested,  and determinable commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses.   69.  The members of the above class shall be referred to as the “Colorado Bonus Class  Members.”   70.  The Named Colorado Bonus Class Representative, individually and on behalf of  the above Colorado Bonus Class Members, brings a class action against Defendants Interthinx  and Verisk based on the Colorado Wage Act.  This state law claim, if certified for class wide  treatment, may be pursued by all similarly situated persons who do not opt-out of the class.   72.  Defendants  failed  to  pay  all  earned,  vested,  and  determinable  commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses to the Named Colorado Bonus Class Representative and  the Colorado Bonus Class Members.   73.  Interthinx’s deliberate and illegal retroactive change to its commissions/non- discretionary bonuses structure resulted in Defendants Interthinx and Verisk violation of the  Wage Act, as well as other state labor laws nationwide.   74.  Because Defendants Interthinx and Verisk failed to properly pay all earned,  vested, and determinable commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses, the Named Colorado Bonus  Class Representative and the Colorado Bonus Class Members are entitled to all due  commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses plus reasonable attorneys’ fees.  