(Class Action Alleging Violations of the Missouri Act)  A.  MISSOURI ACT COVERAGE   (Collective Action Alleging FLSA Violations)  A.  FLSA COVERAGE   20.  Serco is a multinational services company that is headquartered in Reston, Virginia  with locations in forty-five (45) states, four Canadian provinces and fourteen (14) countries around  the world.2 Serco’s call centers operate throughout the United States and primarily serve federal, state,  and local governments.3   2 https://www.serco-na.com/about/locations.   3 https://www.serco-na.com.   Plaintiff’s Original Class/Collective Action Complaint  Page 5   21.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ job duties generally consisted of answering  phone calls made by Serco’s clients’ customers, answering customer inquiries, and generally assisting  customers with their inquiries.    22.  Plaintiff Sandoval was employed by Serco in customer service in Wentzville, Missouri  from approximately October 2016 until February 2018.   23.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were (and are) non-exempt call-center  employees who were (and are) paid by the hour.   24.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked approximately forty (40) “on-the- clock” hours per week.   25.  In addition to their forty (40) “on-the-clock” hours, Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members worked up to four hours “off-the-clock” per week and have not been compensated for that  time.   26.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have not been compensated for all the hours  they worked for Serco as a result of Serco’s corporate policy and practice of paying its employees only  for their scheduled shifts; that is, requiring its hourly call-center employees to clock-in only when ready  to take their first call, at the start of their scheduled shift, and to work after their scheduled shifts had  ended.   27.  Specifically, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are required to start and log-in  to their computer, open multiple different Serco computer programs, log in to each Serco program,  and ensure that each Serco program is running correctly—all of which can take up to twenty  minutes—before they are able to take their first phone call, which comes in as soon as their official  shift starts.    28.  In addition, Serco frequently required Plaintiff and the Putative Class to assist  customers after the end of their scheduled shifts, and to remain at their computers during the lengthy  Plaintiff’s Original Class/Collective Action Complaint  Page 6  shut-down process, activities which were performed after the employees’ scheduled shifts had  concluded.   29.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not compensated during their start-up  time, although they were expected to have completed this process in advance of their official start  time.    30.  Nor were Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members compensated for the time they  worked for Serco after their shifts ended although they were required to continue assisting customers  or waiting by their computers during the lengthy shut-down process.   31.  Serco required Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to be logged on and have all  the requisite computer programs running before their first phone call, at the start of their official shift.   32.  Serco also forced Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to remain call available  until the end of their scheduled shift, at which point they were clocked out despite having to complete  their pending call, log out of all open programs, and shut down their computers.    33.  As such, Serco required (and continues to require) Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members to perform their start-up and shut-down tasks “off-the-clock” (and without pay) before their  official shift begins, and after their official shift ends.   34.  As a result of Serco’s corporate policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members to perform these start-up and shut-down tasks while off-the-clock before the  beginning of their shifts, and after the ends of their shifts, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members  were not compensated for all hours worked, including all worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek  at the rates required by the FLSA.   35.  Serco has employed other individuals who perform(ed) the same or similar job duties  under the same pay provisions as Plaintiff.  Plaintiff’s Original Class/Collective Action Complaint  Page 7   36.  Serco is aware of its obligation to pay overtime for all hours worked and the proper  amount of overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) each week to Plaintiff and the Putative  Class Members, but has failed to do so.    37.  Because Serco did not pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all hours  worked and time and a half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek, Serco’s pay  policies and practices violate the FLSA.    38.  Because Serco did not pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all hours they  worked on behalf of Serco, Serco’s pay policies and practices also violate Missouri state law.   V.  39.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   40.  The FLSA Collective is defined as:  56.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   57.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this is a collective action filed on behalf of all of Serco’s  employees who have been similarly situated to Plaintiff with regard to the work they performed and  the manner in which they were paid.  Plaintiff’s Original Class/Collective Action Complaint  Page 10   58.  Other similarly situated employees of Serco have been victimized by Serco’s patterns,  practices, and policies, which are in willful violation of the FLSA.   59.  The FLSA Collective Members are defined in Paragraph 40.   60.  Serco’s failure to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members for all hours worked  and overtime compensation at the rates required by the FLSA, results from generally applicable  policies and practices of Serco, and does not depend on the personal circumstances of Plaintiff or the  FLSA Collective Members.    61.  Thus, Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the experiences of the FLSA Collective  Members.   62.  The specific job titles or precise job requirements of the various FLSA Collective  Members do not prevent collective treatment.    63.  All of the FLSA Collective Members—regardless of their specific job titles, precise job  requirements, rates of pay, or job locations—are entitled to be paid for all hours worked and at the  proper overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.    64.  Although the issues of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction  from the common nucleus of liability facts.     65.  Absent a collective action, many members of the proposed FLSA collective likely will  not obtain redress of their injuries and Serco will retain the proceeds of its violations.   66.  Moreover, individual litigation would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.  Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among the claims  of the individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.   67.  Accordingly, the FLSA collective of similarly situated plaintiffs should be certified as  defined as in Paragraph 40 and notice should be promptly sent.   Plaintiff’s Original Class/Collective Action Complaint  Page 11  68.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   69.  The Missouri Act Class is defined as:  81.  Plaintiff Sandoval brings her Missouri Act claims as a class action pursuant to Federal  Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all similarly situated individuals employed by Serco to work  in Missouri since September 17, 2016.   82.  Class action treatment of Plaintiff Sandoval’s Missouri Act claims is appropriate  because, as alleged below, all of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23’s class action requisites are satisfied.   83.  The number of Missouri Class Members is so numerous that joinder of all class  members is impracticable.   84.  Plaintiff Sandoval is a member of the Missouri Class, her claims are typical of the  claims of the Missouri Class Members, and she has no interests that are antagonistic to or in conflict  with the interests of the Missouri Class Members.  Plaintiff’s Original Class/Collective Action Complaint  Page 13   85.  Plaintiff Sandoval and her counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Missouri  Class Members and their interests.   86.  Class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)  because common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual class  members and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation.   87.  Accordingly, the Missouri Class should be certified as defined in Paragraph 69.  VI. 