(Class Action Alleging Violations of the Kansas Wage Protection Act)  A.  KANSAS COVERAGE   (Collective Action Alleging FLSA Violations)  A.  FLSA COVERAGE   21.  ADT employs non-exempt workers in its call centers to provide assistance to ADT’s  clients.    22.  ADT is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, and has additional call centers in New  Jersey, Kansas, New York, and Texas.    23.  ADT provides home and business security services, such as surveillance systems, and  alarm systems throughout the United States.2   25.  Plaintiff Drowatzky was employed by ADT in Wichita, Kansas from approximately  January 2018 until April 2018.    26.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are non-exempt call-center employees who  were (and are) paid by the hour.   27.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked approximately forty (40) “on-the- clock” hours per week.   28.  In addition to their forty (40) “on-the-clock” hours, Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members often worked up to six hours “off-the-clock” per week and have not been compensated for  that time.   29.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have not been compensated for all the hours  they worked for ADT as a result of ADT’s uniform corporate policy and practice of paying its  employees only during regularly scheduled shift time, and only when their computers were fully booted  up and operational.    30.  Specifically, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are required to start up and log  in to their computers before their shift officially starts, and then log in to each ADT program, and  ensure that each ADT 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 computers are fully  operational.    31.  In addition, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were required to arrive at work  early, well in advance in of their scheduled shifts, in order to perform work for ADT.   33.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not compensated for work they  performed for ADT prior to their scheduled shifts, including their computer start-up time, although  they were expected to have completed their computer start up in advance of their official start time.    34.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were also not compensated for the time they  worked for ADT rebooting ADT’s computers after they crashed.    35.  As a result of ADT’s corporate policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members to perform work for ADT, including their start-up and rebooting tasks, while  off-the-clock before the beginning 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.   36.  ADT has employed other individuals who perform(ed) the same or similar job duties  under the same pay provisions as Plaintiff.   37.  ADT 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.    38.  Because ADT did not pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members time and a half  for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek, ADT’s pay policies and practices violate  the FLSA.    40.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   41.  The FLSA Collective is defined as:  58.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   59.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this is a collective action filed on behalf of all of ADT’s  employees throughout the United States who have been similarly situated to Plaintiff with regard to  the work they performed and the manner in which they were paid.   60.  Other similarly situated employees of ADT have been victimized by ADT’s patterns,  practices, and policies, which are in willful violation of the FLSA.   61.  The FLSA Collective Members are defined in Paragraph 41.   63.  Thus, Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the experiences of the FLSA Collective  Members.   64.  The specific job titles or precise job requirements of the various FLSA Collective  Members do not prevent collective treatment.    65.  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.    66.  Although the issues of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction  from the common nucleus of liability facts.     67.  Absent a collective action, many members of the proposed FLSA collective likely will  not obtain redress of their injuries and ADT will retain the proceeds of its violations.   68.  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.   69.  Accordingly, the FLSA collective of similarly situated plaintiffs should be certified as  defined as in Paragraph 41 and notice should be promptly sent.   70.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   71.  The Kansas Class is defined as:  83.  Plaintiff Drowatzky brings his KWPA claims as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule  of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all similarly situated individuals employed by ADT to work in  Kansas since March 4, 2017.   84.  Class action treatment of Plaintiff Drowatzky’s KWPA claim is appropriate because,  as alleged below, all of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23’s class action requisites are satisfied.   85.  The number of Kansas Class Members is so numerous that joinder of all class  members is impracticable.   86.  Plaintiff Drowatzky is a member of the Kansas Class, his claims are typical of the  claims of other Kansas Class Members, and he has no interests that are antagonistic to or in conflict  with the interests of other Kansas Class Members.   87.  Plaintiff Drowatzky and his counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Kansas  Class Members and their interests.   88.  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.  