34.  During her employment with Defendants, Class Plaintiff Adams worked as a  home health aide. Class Plaintiff Adams primary duties were providing companionship services,  domestic services, home care, and other in-home services.   35.  Class Plaintiff Adams regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not  paid one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for those hours worked over 40.   37.  Defendants did/do not pay their employees one and one-half times their regular  hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek because they pay their employees  through two entities and distribute the hours worked between the entities.   38.  Each pay period Plaintiff Adams and other similarly situated employees worked  for Defendants, they received one check from Defendant COEC for some, but not all, hours  worked for Defendants during the pay period.  A true and accurate copy of a check dated March  31, 2017 from Defendant COEC for pay period March 12, 2017 through March 25, 2017 is  attached hereto as Exhibit B.   39.  Each pay period Plaintiff Adams and other similarly situated employees worked  for Defendants, they received a separate check from Defendant COEC PLUS for some, but not  all, hours worked for Defendants during the pay period.  A true and accurate copy of a check  dated March 31, 2017 from Defendant COEC PLUS for pay period March 12, 2017 through  March 25, 2017 is attached hereto as Exhibit C.    40.  Defendants required Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to track their  time on separate timesheets and to split their compensable hours worked between the two (2)  timesheets and/or time tracking systems1.    41.  Some of the hours Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked for  Defendants were recorded on one (1) timesheet and/or time tracking system and were later paid  by Defendant COEC. See Exhibit B.    43.  Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees for all overtime hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week by requiring Plaintiff  and other similarly situated employees to divide their total hours worked for Defendants into two  (2) separate timesheets and/or time tracking systems.    44.  Defendants failed to account for the total number of compensable hours and  overtime hours Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked for Defendants when  both of Defendants’ timesheets and/or time tracking systems are considered.     45.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees any  overtime wages owed when neither of the two (2) individual timesheets and/or time tracking  systems showed Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’ compensable hours as greater  than forty (40) hours per week and/or eighty (80) per two weeks, even though the combined total  of both timesheets and/or time tracking systems demonstrated Plaintiff’s and other similarly  situated employees’ total compensable hours worked per week for Defendants consistently  exceeded forty (40) per week.    46.  By paying Plaintiff Adams and other similarly situated employees with two (2)  separate paychecks each pay period and by requiring multiple timesheets and/or time tracking  systems for work performed for Defendants, Defendants failed to compensate them for all hours  worked in excess of forty (40) per week at one and one-half times Plaintiff’s and other similarly  situated employees’ regular rate of pay.   b. Defendants failed to properly pay Plaintiff and other similarly  situated employees one and a half (1.5) times their regular rate of pay  for all overtime hours by reducing their regular hourly rate and by  paying overtime wages based upon the reduced hourly rate.    48.  By September of 2016, Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay was $10.50 per hour.    49.  As long as Plaintiff’s recorded hours for each of the two (2) separate timesheets  and/or time tracking systems did not exceed forty (40) per week and/or eighty (80) per pay  period, Defendants paid Plaintiff her regular rate of $10.50 per hour for all hours worked.2    50.  However, if Plaintiff recorded more than forty (40) hours per week and/or eighty  (80) per pay period on either of the dual time tracking systems, Defendants then reduced her  regular rate of pay to a lower hourly rate.    51.  Defendants then paid both Plaintiff’s regular wages at this lower hourly rate and  some overtime wages at one and a half (1.5) times this reduced hourly rate. See Exhibit D and  Exhibit E, paystubs from both Defendants COEC PLUS and COEC, respectively, dated  November 23, 2016 for pay period November 6, 2016 through November 19, 2016.    53.  Defendants did not reduce Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate on the paycheck from  Defendant COEC for that same pay period where her recorded compensable hours for one time  tracking system totaled sixty-three (63) hours. See Exhibit E.     54.  For pay period March 12, 2017 through March 25, 2017, Defendants reduced  Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay from $10.50 per hour to $9.95 per hour when her recorded  compensable hours totaled ninety-one (91) hours on her paycheck from Defendant COEC.  Defendants then paid her eleven (11) hours of overtime based on this reduced hourly rate at a  rate of $14.925 per hour instead of $15.75 per hour as required3. See Exhibit B.    55.  For the same pay period, Defendant did not reduce Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay  of $10.50 per hour on her paycheck from Defendant COEC PLUS when her recorded  compensable hours totaled sixty-six and a half (66.5) hours for that pay period. See Exhibit C.    56.  By reducing Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’ regular hourly rate  of pay when they recorded more than forty (40) hours per week and/or eighty (80) per pay period  on either of the dual time tracking systems, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other  similarly situated employees for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week at one and  one-half times Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’ respective regular rates of pay.   c. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for travel  time to and from worksites during their workdays resulting in unpaid overtime  wages.    58.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly employees frequently traveled  throughout their workdays attending to multiple patients at different locations each workday,  often traveling to different cities and/or counties throughout the same workday.    59.  Defendants were aware of the daily travel, but they failed to compensate Plaintiff  and other similarly situated employees for their travel time.    60.  As a result of failing to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees for their travel time, Defendants failed to pay their employees overtime wages for all  compensable hours worked.  IV.  61.  The Class Plaintiff brings her FLSA claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) as a  representative action on behalf of her and all other Similarly Situated Persons (“SSPs”) of the  opt-in class, consisting of:  All current and former employees of Defendants who worked over  40 hours in any workweek beginning three years immediately  preceding the filing of this Complaint through the date of final  disposition of this case, and were not paid one and one-half times  their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 because (i)  Defendants divided their hours worked between two entities and  paid them with two (2) paychecks for the same pay periods; and/or  (ii) Defendants reduced their employees’ regular rate of pay;  and/or (iii) Defendants failed to pay for travel time (the “216(b)  Class” or the “216(b) Class Members”).   63.  This FLSA claim is brought as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  §216(b) as to claims for overtime compensation, compensation withheld in violation of the  FLSA, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under the FLSA. In addition to the Class Plaintiff,  numerous putative 216(b) Class Members have been denied proper overtime compensation due  to Defendants’ joint company-wide payroll policies and practices. The Class Plaintiff is  representative of those other similarly situated employees and is acting on behalf of her interests  as well as their own in bringing this action.   64.  The identity of the putative 216(b) Class Members are known to Defendants and  are readily identifiable through Defendants’ payroll records. These individuals may readily be  notified of this action, and allowed to opt into it pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), for the purpose  of collectively adjudicating their claims for overtime compensation, liquidated damages,  attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA.    65.  The Class Plaintiff brings her Ohio Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23 as a class action on behalf of herself and all other members of the following class:   All current and former employees of Defendants who worked over  40 hours in any workweek beginning three years immediately  preceding the filing of this Complaint through the date of final  disposition of this case, and were not paid one and one-half times  their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 because (i)  Defendants divided their hours worked between two entities and  paid them with two (2) paychecks for the same pay periods; and/or  (ii) Defendants reduced their employees’ regular rate of pay;  and/or (iii) Defendants failed to pay for travel time (the “Rule 23  Class” or the “Rule 23 Class Members”).   67.  The Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable.   68.  The Class Plaintiff is a member of the Rule 23 Class and her claims for unpaid  wages are typical of the claims of other members of the Rule 23 Class.    69.  The Class Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Rule 23 Class and the  interests of all members of the Rule 23 Class.   70.  The Class Plaintiff has no interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict with those  interests of the Rule 23 Class that she has undertaken to represent.    71.  The Class Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced class action counsel  who can ably represent the interests of the entire Rule 23 Class.    72.  Questions of law and fact are common to the Rule 23 Class.    73.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because individual  actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish  incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants with respect to their non-exempt employees.   74.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as Defendants  acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Rule 23 Class, making appropriate  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class as a whole.   75.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of  law and facts common to the Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual  members of the Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to other available methods  for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.    77.  A class action is superior to individual actions for the fair and efficient  adjudication of Class Plaintiff’s claim and will prevent undue financial, administrative and  procedural burdens on the parties and the Court. Class Plaintiff and counsel are not aware of any  pending Ohio litigation on behalf of the Rule 23 Class, as defined herein, or on behalf of any  individual alleging a similar claim. Because the damages sustained by individual members are  modest compared to the costs of individual litigation, it would be impractical for class members  to pursue individual litigation against the Defendants to vindicate their rights. Certification of  this case as a class action will enable the issues to be adjudicated for all class members with the  efficiencies of class litigation.   V.  78.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   80.  The FLSA requires that employees receive overtime compensation for hours  worked in excess of forty (40) per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   81.  During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendants  employed the Class Plaintiff and/or the 216(b) Class Members.   82.  The Class Plaintiff and the 216(b) Class Members were paid on an hourly basis  when working in non-exempt positions.   83.  The Class Plaintiff and the 216(b) Class Members regularly worked in excess of  40 hours in a workweek.   84.  Defendants jointly violated the FLSA with respect to Class Plaintiff and the  216(b) Class by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at one and one-half times their regular  rates of pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek as a result of their FLSA- violating policies explained more fully above.   85.  The Class Plaintiff and the 216(b) Class Members were not exempt from  receiving FLSA overtime benefits.   86.  Defendants knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of  the FLSA. Defendants were doubtlessly aware of the January 1, 2015 exemption elimination for  third party employers, yet Defendants willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime  compensation to which Named Plaintiff and the 216(b) Collective Members are entitled.   87.  Defendants knowingly, willfully and jointly failed to pay the Class Plaintiff and  the 216(b) Class Members the overtime wages they were due.   89.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ joint conduct, the Class Plaintiff  and the 216(b) Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. The Class Plaintiff  seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees,  and all other remedies available, on behalf of herself and the 216(b) Class Members.   90.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   91.  This claim is brought under Ohio law.   92.  The Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members have been jointly employed  by Defendants, and Defendants are employers covered by the overtime requirements under Ohio  law.   93.  Ohio law requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not less than  one and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty  (40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the exemptions of  section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.”  See O.R.C. § 4111.03(A); see  also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   94.  While jointly employed by Defendants, the Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class  Members worked in excess of the maximum weekly hours permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03,  but were not paid overtime wages for this time spent working.   96.  Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class were not exempt from the wage protections  of Ohio law.   97.  Defendants’ repeated, knowing and joint failure to pay overtime wages to the  Class Plaintiff were violations of R.C. §4111.03, and as such, Defendants willfully withheld and  failed to pay the overtime compensation to which Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members  are entitled.    98.  For Defendants’ violations of R.C. §4111.03, the Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23  Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. The Class Plaintiff seeks unpaid  overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other  remedies available, on behalf of herself and the Rule 23 Class Members.  FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME   R.C. 4113.15 — RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR OPPA VIOLATION   R.C. 4111.03 — RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME   RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO WAGE ACT  106.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.  107.  The Ohio Wage Act requires employers to maintain and preserve payroll or  other records containing, among other things, the hours worked each workday and the total  hours worked each workweek. See O.R.C. § 4111.08. See also, 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2 et seq.  108.  During times material to this complaint, Defendants were covered employers,  and jointly and severally required to comply with the Ohio Wage Act’s mandates.  109.  Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members were covered employee entitled  to the protection of the Ohio Wage Act.  110.  During times material to this complaint, Defendants jointly violated the Ohio  Wage Act with respect to Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members by failing to  properly maintain accurate records of all hours Class Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class  Members worked each workday and within each workweek.  111.  In violating the Ohio Wage Act, Defendants jointly acted willfully and with  reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio Wage Act provisions.  VI. 