(Failure to compensate for work performed “off the clock”)   (Unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA)   17.  Plaintiff ANTONIO COLE, files this case as an “opt in” collective  action, as it is specifically allowed by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   19.  Plaintiff, ANTONIO COLE, seeks to represent only those members of the  above-described group who, after appropriate notice of their ability to opt into this  action, have provided consent in writing to be represented by counsel for Plaintiff  ANTONIO COLE, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   20.  Those persons who choose to opt in, referred to as the “Plaintiff’s  class”, will be listed on subsequent pleadings and copies of their written consents to  sue will be filed with the Court.   21.  Plaintiff ANTONIO COLE contends that this action is appropriate for  collective action status because Defendant herein has acted in the same manner with  regard to all members of the Plaintiff’s class.  V.  22.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant has been subject to the  requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. 201 et.seq.   23.  For purposes of this action, the “relevant period” is defined as such  period commencing on the date that is three years prior to the filing of this action, and  continuing thereafter.   24.  Defendant h a s  employed Plaintiff ANTONIO COLE since 2010 as a  Property Claims Adjuster.  Defendant’s headquarters is located in Columbus, Ohio.   Defendant has locations throughout the United States.   26.  During his employment and in the routine performance of his day-to-day  job duties, Plaintiff has performed non-exempt work, during a significant period of most  days, as classified by the Act, because the performance of Plaintiff’s job required it and  because Defendant’s management required the performance of those non-exempted job  duties, as a condition of Plaintiff’s continued employment.   27.  Specifically, Plaintiff worked as a Property Claims Adjuster for  Defendant’s insurance business.  Plaintiff’s duties included, but are not limited to:  inspecting homes, businesses and other properties that might have damage; interviewing  claimants and witnesses; speaking with policy holders; performing research related to the  claims.  Plaintiff earns an annual salary of $57,000.   28.  Plaintiff’s regular work week schedule was supposed to be  Monday  through Friday from 8:00 o’clock A.M. until 4:30 o’clock P.M.  Plaintiff, however, has  been forced to work 3 to 4 more hours per day during the week and is also forced to work  8 to 10 hour weekends.   29.  During Plaintiff’s employment, while working for the Defendants,  Plaintiff was required to work overtime hours in excess of 40 hours worked during many  seven-day workweeks.   30.  Further, during these hours worked, Plaintiff has performed the function  of his job, which included the performance duties typically performed by “hourly” paid  non-exempt employees because the job required it and the Defendant’s management  required it, as a condition of Plaintiff’s continued employment.   32.  Plaintiff and others like him were routinely required to perform work  “off the clock.”  Defendant demanded that Plaintiff and others like him perform off the  clock work as a condition of their employment.   33.  Defendant required Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to perform all  necessary work to include the performance of those duties otherwise typically  performed by “hourly” employees which routinely required Plaintiff and other  similarly situated employees to work “overtime” hours as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 201  et seq., for which they failed to receive overtime compensation as required by the Act.   34.  Defendant failed to pay statutory overtime as required by 29 U.S.C. §  201 et seq.   VI.  35.  Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs is re- alleged as if fully written herein.   36.  Plaintiff ANTONIO COLE, and all others similarly situated are  considered non-exempt employees under the statutory provisions of the Fair Labor  Standards Act, 29 U.S. C. 201, et seq., as well as by the administrative regulations used  to interpret the Act.   37.    Plaintiff ANTONIO COLE, and all others similarly situated are entitled  to receive overtime pay for all hours they have worked in excess of 40 during each seven- day workweek.   39.  Defendant has violated 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. by failing to compensate  the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees “overtime” pay for all hours  worked in excess of 40 hours per week.   40.  Defendant has failed to make good faith efforts to comply with the  FLSA, and has willfully and deliberately sought to evade the requirements of the federal  statute.   41.   The Defendant’s conduct was willful within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §  255(a).   42.  No lawful exemption excused the Defendant from compensating  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, overtime pay for hours worked over forty per  week.   43.  Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out  an illegal pattern and practice of deceptive and fraudulent accounting practices  regarding overtime compensation due to Plaintiff and to all others similarly situated.   44.  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seek an amount of back-pay  equal to the unpaid overtime compensation from the date they commenced  employment for the Defendant until the date of trial.   56.  Plaintiff ANTONIO COLE, and all others similarly situated is  considered non-exempt employees under the statutory provisions of the Fair Labor  Standards Act, 29 U.S. C. 201, et seq., as well as by the administrative regulations used  to interpret the Act.   57.  Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and all others similarly  situated, their entitled pay for all hours they worked in a workweek.   58.  Defendant failed to make good faith efforts to comply with the FLSA,  and have willfully and deliberately sought to evade the requirements of the federal  statute.   59.  Defendant failed to maintain a complete, accurate, and contemporaneous  record of the number of hours worked per workweek by Plaintiff and by all other  similarly situated employees, as required by law.   60.  Defendant engaged in wage theft by not compensating Plaintiff and all  others similarly situated for work they were required to perform for Defendant as part  of their regular job duties by not paying Plaintiff and others similarly situated work  done outside of the regular hours worked.     62.  No lawful exemption excused the Defendant from compensating  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for hours worked, but not recorded or paid in  a workweek   63.  Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out  an illegal pattern and practice of deceptive and fraudulent accounting practices  regarding compensation due to Plaintiff and to all others similarly situated for hours  worked, but not recorded or paid.   64.  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seek an amount of back-pay  equal to the unpaid compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or paid, from  the date they commenced employment for the Defendant until the date of trial.   65.  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated further seek an additional equal  amount as liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as  provided by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), along with post-judgment interest at the highest rate  allowed by law.  IX.  66.  Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraph is re- alleged as if fully written herein.   67.  Other employees have been victimized by this pattern, practice, and  policy of the Defendant that is in violation of the FLSA.   68.  Thus, from personal knowledge, Plaintiff is aware that the illegal  practices and policies of Defendant has been imposed on other workers.   70.  Accordingly, Defendant’s pattern and practice of failing to compensate  employees for work performed, but not recorded or paid, as required by the FLSA  results from the Defendant’s general application of policies and practices, and does not  depend on the personal circumstances of the members class.   71.  Plaintiff ANTONIO COLE’s, experience is typical of the experience of  the member’s class as it pertains to compensation.   72.  The specific job titles or job requirements of the various members of the  class do not prevent collective treatment.   73.  All employees, regardless of their job requirements or rates of pay, who  are denied compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or paid, are similarly  situated.   74.  All employees, regardless of their job requirements or rates of pay, who  were the victims of the wage theft scheme engaged in by the Defendant, are similarly  situated   75.  Although the issue of damages may be individual in character, there is no  detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts.   76.  All current and former employees of Defendant’s insurance business,  who at any time during the three years prior to the date of filing of this action to the date  of judgment who were denied compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or  paid in any given workweek are properly included as members of the class.  X. 