(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (O.R.C. § 4111.03 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   30.  In or around September, 2014, Named Plaintiff Parton began working for  Defendants as a service technician and/or general laborer until his employment ended on or about  May 1, 2017.   31.  Service technicians and general laborers primarily perform the same or similar job  duties in the form of general labor.   32.  Plaintiff Parton was compensated a weekly wage in the amount of approximately  $600 per week.   33.  As a service technician, Plaintiff Parton’s primary job duties consisted of general  labor in the form of commercial and residential home and building repairs and maintenance  services, including but not limited to remodeling, electrical, plumbing, and other miscellaneous  services for Defendants.   34.  At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Perez was jointly employed by Defendant  AMBH and Defendant Carpenter from approximately April, 2014 through January, 2015 as a  general laborer. He subsequently returned to work for Defendants as a service technician from  approximately July, 2015 through July, 2016.   35.  As both a general laborer and a service technician, Plaintiff Perez primarily  performed general labor in the form of commercial and residential home and building repairs and  maintenance services, including but not limited to remodeling, electrical, plumbing, and other  miscellaneous services for Defendants.   36.  Plaintiff Perez was compensated a weekly wage in the amount of approximately  $550 per week.   38.  Upon information and belief, Defendants have a companywide pay policy and/or  practice of misclassifying all of its employees, including Named Plaintiffs, in the position of  service technician, general laborer, or equivalent position, because they are paid a weekly wage  even though Defendants knew or should have known that its employees, including Named  Plaintiffs, primarily performed non-exempt job duties in the form of general labor as described  herein.    39.  Named Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week during  all relevant times herein, but were not paid time-and-a-half (“overtime rate”) due to them for all  hours worked in excess of forty (40) in any workweek as a result of Defendants’ unlawful pay  policy and/or practice.   40.  For example, Named Plaintiffs were required to work from approximately 8:00 am  until 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, which amounts to a minimum of approximately forty-five  (45) hours per week.   41.  Upon information and belief, the mandatory forty-five-hour (45) workweek is a  company policy in Defendants’ employee handbook.   42.  Named Plaintiffs also often performed substantial duties on behalf of Defendants  beyond 5:00 pm during the workweek.    43.  Despite working more than 40 hours in a workweek during the three years  preceding the filing of this Complaint, Named Plaintiffs were only paid the weekly wage, resulting  in unpaid overtime wages due to them by Defendants.    45.  Furthermore, Named Plaintiffs’ weekly wages were reduced depending on the  number of hours worked in a workweek, including when they worked below forty (40) hours per  week.   46.  As such, Defendants misclassified the Named Plaintiffs and Putative Class  Members because they primarily performed non-exempt job duties in the form of general labor  and Defendants reduced the weekly wages when Named Plaintiffs worked below forty (40) hours  per week.   47.  Despite the misclassification of Named Plaintiffs and Putative Class members  employed in the positions of service technician, general laborer, or equivalent position, Defendants  willfully continued to compensate them on a weekly basis regardless of whether they worked in  excess of forty (40) in a workweek.    48.  Accordingly, Named Plaintiffs were misclassified at all times relevant during the  three years preceding the filing of this Complaint because they were each, as a service technician,  general laborer or equivalent position, an hourly non-exempt employee of Defendants.   49.  Named Plaintiffs neither primarily performed managerial duties nor supervised two  or more employees.   50.  Named Plaintiffs could not hire, fire, or discipline employees.   51.  Named Plaintiffs’ primary job duties did not consist of the exercise of discretion  and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.   53.  During the three years preceding the filing of Named Plaintiffs’ Complaint,  Defendants did not pay them one-and-a-half times her regular hourly rate for all compensable  hours they worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.   54.  Defendants knew or should have been aware that Named Plaintiffs worked in  excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek, but willfully elected not to compensate them for all  hours worked in excess of forty (40) during the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint.   55.  Defendants’ failure to pay Named Plaintiffs has caused damages, including unpaid  wages, including overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.    56.  In the alternative, Named Plaintiffs have been misclassified by Defendants as  exempt employees when Defendants knew or should have known through reasonable diligence  that Named Plaintiffs either were actually not compensated on a salaried basis or that, if they were  compensated on a salaried basis, that Named Plaintiffs primarily performed non-exempt job duties  and should have been paid them overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in any  workweek.   57.  Upon information and belief, during the relevant time period, Defendants applied  the same pay practices and policies to all of its employees, including Named Plaintiffs.  IV.  59.  Examples of employees that may be members of the §216(b) Class include, but  may not be limited to, service technicians, general laborers, or equivalent positions performing  similar general labor in the form of commercial and residential home and building repairs and  maintenance services, including but not limited to remodeling, electrical, plumbing, yard  maintenance, and other miscellaneous services for Defendants.   60.  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 Named Plaintiffs, numerous  putative §216(b) Class Members have been denied proper overtime wages due to Defendants’  company-wide payroll policies and practices. Named Plaintiffs are representatives of those other  similarly situated employees and are acting on behalf of their interests as well as their own in  bringing this action.   61.  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 and minimum wages, liquidated damages,  attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA.    63.  Named Plaintiffs bring their Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (“Ohio Wage  Act”) claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 as a class action on behalf of themselves and all other  members of the following class:   All current and former misclassified service technicians, general  laborers, or other employees of Defendants who performed general  labor and 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 (the “Ohio Overtime Rule 23  Class,” or the “Ohio Overtime Rule 23 Class Members”).   64.  Examples of employees that may be members of the Rule 23 Class include, but may  not be limited to, service technicians, general laborers, or equivalent positions performing similar  general labor in the form of commercial and residential home and building repairs and maintenance  services, including but not limited to remodeling, electrical, plumbing, yard maintenance, and  other miscellaneous services for Defendants.   65.  The Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.   66.  Named Plaintiffs are members of the Ohio Overtime Rule 23 Class and their claims  for unpaid overtime wages are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Overtime Rule  23 Class.   67.  Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the Ohio Overtime Rule 23  Class and the interests of all members of the Ohio Overtime Rule 23 Class.   68.  Named Plaintiffs have no interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict with those  interests of the Ohio Overtime Rule 23 Class that she undertaken to represent.   69.  Named Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced class action counsel  who can ably represent the interests of the entire Ohio Overtime Rule 23 Class.   71.  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.   72.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as Defendant acted  or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Ohio Overtime Rule 23 Class, making  appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio  Overtime Rule 23 Class as a whole.   73.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of  law and facts common to the Ohio Overtime Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting  individual members of the Ohio Overtime Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to  other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.    75.  A class action is superior to individual actions for the fair and efficient adjudication  of Named Plaintiffs’ and the Ohio Overtime Rule 23 Class’ claims and will prevent undue  financial, administrative and procedural burdens on the parties and the Court. Named Plaintiffs  and counsel are not aware of any pending Ohio litigation on behalf of the Ohio Overtime 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  Defendant 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.  76.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   77.  This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiffs on behalf  of themselves and the §216(b) Class.    78.  During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendants employed  Named Plaintiffs and/or the §216(b) Class Members.   79.  The FLSA requires that employees receive overtime compensation for hours  worked in excess of forty (40) per week. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   80.  Defendants employed individuals, including Named Plaintiffs, in the positions of  service technician, general laborer, or equivalent position to be determined through discovery.   82.  Service technicians primarily perform non-exempt job duties.   83.  General laborers or equivalent positions primarily perform non-exempt job duties.   84.  Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Class Members were paid a weekly wage rather  than on an hourly basis when working in non-exempt positions.   85.  Alternatively, the weekly wages of Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Class  Members were reduced depending on the number of hours worked in a workweek, including when  they worked below forty (40) hours per week.   86.  Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours in  a workweek.   87.  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  hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek due to the fact that, by way of demonstration  and not limitation, Named Plaintiffs were paid a weekly wage rather than on an hourly basis even  though they primarily performed non-exempt job duties; and Defendants failed to keep accurate  timekeeping records for the hours working over forty (40).   88.  Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Class Members were not exempt from receiving  FLSA overtime benefits.   90.  Despite such knowledge, Defendants willfully withheld and failed to pay the  overtime compensation to which Named Plaintiffs and the §216(b) Class Members are entitled.   91.  Defendants knowingly and willfully jointly failed to pay Named Plaintiffs and the  §216(b) Class Members the overtime wages they were due.   92.  The exact total amount of compensation, including overtime compensation, that  Defendants have failed to pay 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 simply not kept by Defendants due to the misclassification of Named  Plaintiffs.   93.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ joint conduct, Named Plaintiffs and  the §216(b) Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. 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.   94.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   95.  This claim is brought under Ohio law.   96.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Overtime Rule 23 Class Members have been  employed by Defendant, and Defendant is an employer covered by the overtime requirements  under Ohio law.   98.  While employed by Defendants, the Named Plaintiffs and the Ohio Overtime 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 all such hours.   A. 216(b) Collective Action for Unpaid Overtime and Other Wages.  