(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (O.R.C. § 4111.03 — OHIO RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   44.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   45.  During her employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Richardson worked as  an office clerk filing documentation, answering phone calls, billing and performing related tasks  from May 2016 until approximately July 2017. Named Plaintiff Richardson regularly worked more  than 40 hours per week, but was not paid one and one-half her regular rate (“overtime premium”  or “overtime”) for hours she worked over 40 in any workweek.   46.  During her employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Sutherland worked as a  home health aide providing companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other in- home services from approximately August 2016 until approximately August 2017. Named  Plaintiff Sutherland regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not paid one and one- half her regular rate (“overtime premium” or “overtime”) for hours she worked over 40 in any  workweek.   48.  During her employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Camara worked as a  home health aide providing companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other in- home services beginning approximately in December 2016 and is still presently employed as of  the date of this filing. Named Plaintiff Camara regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but  was not paid one and one-half her regular rate (“overtime premium” or “overtime”) for hours she  worked over 40 in any workweek.   49.  During her employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff Johnson worked as a  human resources clerk providing office related tasks such as filing, answering phone calls, billing  and related office tasks from approximately February 2017 until approximately July 2017. Named  Plaintiff Johnson additionally worked as a home health aide providing companionship services,  domestic services, home care, and other in-home services from approximately February 2017 until  approximately September 2017. Named Plaintiff Johnson regularly worked more than 40 hours  per week, but was not paid one and one-half her regular rate (“overtime premium” or “overtime”)  for hours she worked over 40 in any workweek.   50.  At all times relevant herein, the Named Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants as  defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.   51.  Subject to the elimination of a previous exemption, all Named Plaintiffs were  hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendants as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.   53.  During relevant times, Defendants suffered and permitted Named Plaintiffs and  those similarly situated to work more than forty (40) hours per workweek, while not compensating  them for all such hours worked over forty (40) at a rate of at least one and one-half times their  regular rates of pay.   54.  Upon information and belief, Defendants, at all times relevant hereto, were fully  aware of the fact that they were legally required to comply with the wage and overtime payment  laws of the United States and of the State of Ohio, as well as record keeping laws of the State of  Ohio.    55.  During relevant times, Defendants had knowledge of and acted willfully in regards  to their conduct described herein.   56.  Defendants are in possession and control of necessary documents and information  from which Named Plaintiffs would be able to precisely calculate damages.  IV.  58.  Examples of employees that may be members of the 216(b) Class include, but may  not be limited to: home managers, support associates, caregivers, home health aides, aides, human  resources clerks, administrative staff, office staff, and other employees who provided  companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other in-home services for Defendants.   59.  Examples of employees that may be members of the 216(b) Class are in positions  in the following departments of Defendants: home health aide services, skill nurse services, social  work, rehabilitation services and human resources/administration.    60.  Those 216(b) Class Members in the 216(b) Home Health Subclass who provided  companionship services, domestic services, home care, and/or other in-home services were no  longer exempt from the FLSA as of January 1, 2015. See FLSA of 1938, §13(a)(15), 29 U.S.C.  §213(a)(15), (21); 29 C.F.R. §552.109(a), (c), 552.6; Dillow v. Home Care Network, Inc., No.  1:16-CV-612, 2017 WL 749196, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2017).    61.  Other 216(b) Class Members in the 216(b) Hourly Employee Subclass such as  human resources clerks and similar hourly employees were never subject to an exemption under  the FLSA.    63.  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.    64.  The net effect of Defendants’ policies and practices is that Defendants willfully  failed to pay overtime wages to save payroll costs. Thus, Defendants enjoyed substantial ill-gained  profits at the expense of the Named Plaintiffs and §216(b) Class Members.  B. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 Class Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages.   66.  Examples of employees that may be members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class include,  but may not be limited to: home managers, support associates, caregivers, home health aides, aides,  human resources clerks, administrative staff, office staff, and other employees who provided  companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other in-home services for Defendants.   67.  The Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.   68.  The Named Plaintiffs are members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and their claims for  unpaid wages are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.    69.  The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the Ohio Rule 23 Class  and the interests of all members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   70.  The Named Plaintiffs do not have an interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict  with those interests of the Ohio Rule 23 Class that they have undertaken to represent.    71.  The Named Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced class action counsel  who can ably represent the interests of the entire Ohio Rule 23 Class.    72.  Questions of law and fact are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class.    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 Ohio Rule 23 Class, making appropriate  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the Ohio 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 Ohio Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual  members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.    76.  Questions of law and fact that are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class include, but  are not limited to: (a) whether Defendants violated the Ohio Wage Act by failing to pay the Ohio  Rule 23 Class for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week; (b) whether Defendants kept  accurate records of the amount of time the Ohio Rule 23 Class was working each day; (c) whether  Defendants calculated the Ohio Rule 23 Class’ overtime rate of pay as required by the statute; (d)  whether Defendants’ violations of the Ohio Wage Act were knowing and willful; (e) what amount  of unpaid and/or withheld compensation, including overtime compensation, is due to the Named  Plaintiffs and other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class on account of Defendants’ violations of  the Ohio Wage Act; and (f) what amount of prejudgment interest is due to Ohio Rule 23 Class  Members on the overtime or other compensation which was withheld or not paid to them.    78.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   79.  This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiffs on behalf  of themselves and the 216(b) Class.    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 Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) Class Members.   82.  The Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) Class Members were paid on an hourly basis  when working in non-exempt positions.   83.  The Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) Class Members regularly worked in excess of  40 hours in a workweek.   84.  Defendants violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b)  Class by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at time-and-one-half times their regular rates for  any hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek.   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 those Named Plaintiffs and 216(b) Class Members in the 216(b) Home  Health Subclass who provided companionship services, domestic services, home care, and/or other  in-home services are entitled.    87.  In addition, Defendants willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime  compensation to which those Named Plaintiffs and 216(b) Class Members in the 216(b) Hourly  Employee Subclass.   88.  The exact total amount of compensation, including overtime compensation, that  Defendants have failed to pay the Named Plaintiffs and the 216(b) Class Members is unknown at  this time, as many of the records necessary to make such precise calculations are in the possession  of Defendants or were not kept by Defendants.   89.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, the Named Plaintiffs and  the 216(b) Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. The Named Plaintiffs  seek unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees,  and all other remedies available, on behalf of themselves and the 216(b) Class Members.   90.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   92.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed  by Defendants, and Defendants are an employer 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 employed by Defendants, the Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class  Members in the Rule 23 Home Health Subclass 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  since January 1, 2015.   95.  While employed by Defendants, the Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class  Members in the Rule 23 Hourly Employee Subclass 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 during the past three years.   96.  Defendants’ company-wide corporate policy of not paying time and a half for the  hours that the Named Plaintiffs and Ohio Rule 23 Class Members worked over 40 each week  resulted in unpaid overtime.   97.  Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not exempt from the wage  protections of Ohio Law.   99.  For Defendants’ violations of O.R.C. § 4111.03, by which the Named Plaintiffs and  the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. The Named  Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and  attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, on behalf of themselves and the Ohio Rule 23  Class Members.  A. 216(b) Collective Action for Unpaid Overtime and Other Wages.   RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO WAGE ACT  107.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.  108.  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.  109.  During all times material to this complaint, Defendants were covered employers,  and required to comply with the Ohio Wage Act’s mandates.  110.  Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members were covered employees  entitled to the protection of the Ohio Wage Act.  111.  During times material to this complaint, Defendants violated the Ohio Wage Act  with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members by failing to properly  maintain accurate records of all hours Named Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members  worked each workday and within each workweek.  112.  In violating the Ohio Wage Act, Defendants acted willfully and with reckless  disregard of clearly applicable Ohio Wage Act provisions. 