(FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (O.R.C. § 4111.03 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME)   (R.C. § 4113.5 – RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO  PROMPT PAY ACT)   24.  At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants as a  RadCon Tech for Defendants at the Portsmouth site beginning in approximately November 2017.   26.  During his employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff was not fully and  properly paid for all of his compensable hours worked because Defendants did not properly  calculate his regular rate of pay for the purposes of lawfully paying him for his overtime hours  worked, resulting in unpaid overtime wages.   27.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked in excess of 40 hours in a  workweek.   28.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were compensated on an hourly,  not a salary or fee basis.   29.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees received compensation for their  work at an hourly rate for all hours worked, plus additional remuneration including additional  payments for maintaining their own health insurance coverage instead of maintaining health  coverage through Defendants’ employer sponsored plans.    30.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees routinely earned additional  remuneration to their hourly compensation.   31.  The FLSA and Ohio Wage Act required Defendants to pay overtime compensation  to their employees at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for the hours they worked  in excess of forty. 29 U.S.C. § 207; O.R.C. §§ 4111.03, 4111.10.   33.  Defendants unlawfully excluded the additional remuneration that was paid to  Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and the Ohio Class in determining their  “regular rates” for purposes of overtime compensation during weeks wherein they worked more  than forty (40) hours. Defendants thereby miscalculated their regular rates and underpaid their  overtime compensation.   34.  Defendants are each jointly an “employer” of Plaintiff and others similarly situated  as that term is defined by the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act.   35.  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.    36.  During relevant times, Defendants had knowledge of and acted willfully regarding  their joint conduct described herein.   37.  Defendants are in possession and control of necessary documents and information  from which Plaintiff would be able to precisely calculate damages.   38.  Plaintiff neither primarily performed managerial duties nor supervised two or more  employees. Plaintiff could not hire, fire, or discipline employees.   39.  Plaintiff’s primary job duties did not consist of the exercise of discretion and  independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.   40.  At all times, Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt hourly employee entitled to  overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in any workweek.    42.  Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been fully and  lawfully compensated for all of their compensable hours worked due to the aforementioned  policies and practices of not paying employees the correct overtime rate for all hours worked over  40 in a workweek.    43.  Defendants knew or should have been aware that Plaintiff and other similarly  situated employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek and were entitled to be  paid an overtime rate based on the correct regular rate of pay, but they willfully elected not to fully  compensate its employees during all times relevant.   44.  Defendants’ joint failure to fully and properly pay Plaintiff and other similarly  situated employees resulted in unpaid overtime wages.  45.  Named Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a  representative action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees of the opt-in  class, consisting of:  All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of  Defendants at the Portsmouth site who received remuneration  payments in addition to their normal hourly rate of pay during any  workweek that they worked over 40 hours in any workweek  beginning three years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and  continuing through the date of final disposition of this case (the  “§216(b) Class” or the “§216(b) Class Members”).   47.  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.   48.  The net effect of Defendants’ policies and practices is that Defendants willfully  failed to fully and properly pay Named Plaintiff and §216(b) Class Members overtime wages.  Thus, Defendants jointly enjoyed substantial ill-gained profits at the expense of the Named  Plaintiff and §216(b) Class Members.  B. Fed.R.Civ. P. 23 Class Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages.   49.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   51.  During relevant times, Plaintiff and those Ohio Rule 23 Class Members worked  more than forty (40) hours per workweek, but were not correctly compensated at a rate of at least  one and one-half times their correct regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 because  of Defendants’ policy and practice of not fully and properly compensating their employees at the  proper overtime rate during workweeks when they received remuneration payments in addition to  their normal hourly rate of pay.    52.  The Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.   53.  Named Plaintiff is a member of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and his claims for unpaid  wages are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   54.  Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Ohio Rule 23 Class and  the interests of all members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   55.  Named Plaintiff has no interest that is antagonistic to or in conflict with those  interests of the Ohio Rule 23 Class that he has undertaken to represent.   56.  Named Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced class action counsel who  can ably represent the interests of the entire Ohio Rule 23 Class.   57.  Questions of law and fact are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class.   58.  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 its non-exempt employees.   60.  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.    61.  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 their correct overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week as  a result of Defendants’ failure to properly calculate the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ regular rate  of pay when they received remuneration payments in addition to their normal hourly rate of pay;  (b) whether Defendants kept accurate records of the amount of time the Ohio Rule 23 Class was  working each day; (c) whether Defendants’ violations of the Ohio Wage Act were knowing and  willful; (d) what amount of unpaid and/or withheld overtime compensation is due to the Named  Plaintiff and other members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class on account of Defendants’ violations of the  Ohio Wage Act; and (e) 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.    63.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   64.  This claim is brought as part of a collective action by the Named Plaintiff on behalf  of himself and the §216(b) Class.   65.  During the relevant time period preceding this Complaint, Defendants jointly  employed the Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members.   66.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members were paid on an hourly basis when  working in non-exempt positions.   67.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours in a  workweek.   68.  The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for every hour worked  in a workweek.  See 29 U.S.C. § 206(b).   69.  The FLSA requires that non-exempt employees receive overtime compensation of  their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. See 29 U.S.C.  § 207(a)(1).   71.  Named Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving FLSA overtime benefits because,  inter alia, he was not an “executive,” “administrative,” or “professional” employee, as those terms  are defined under the FLSA.  See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, et seq.   72.  Named Plaintiff was not exempt from receiving FLSA overtime benefits because,  inter alia, he was not a “learned professional” employee, as that term is defined under the FLSA.   See 29 CFR § 541.301.   73.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members frequently worked in excess of 40  hours per week and received additional remuneration to their hourly rates at times during such  workweeks.   74.  Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Class Members should have been paid the correct  overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek during the three years  from the filing date of this Complaint.   75.  Defendants violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiff and the §216(b)  Class by, inter alia, failing to fully compensate them at time-and-one-half times their regular rates  of pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in workweeks because Defendant did not properly  calculate their employees’ overtime rate when they received remuneration in addition to their  hourly rate of pay.    76.  Defendants knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of  the FLSA. Defendants jointly and willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime compensation  to which Named Plaintiff and the §216(b) Collective Members are entitled.   78.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ joint conduct, the Named Plaintiff  and the §216(b) Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. The Named  Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and  attorneys’ fees, and all other remedies available, on behalf of himself and the 216(b) Class  Members.  79.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   80.  This claim is brought under Ohio Law.    81.  The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been jointly  employed by Defendants, and Defendants are each an employer covered by the overtime  requirements under Ohio law.   82.  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).   84.  Defendants’ company-wide corporate policy and/or practice of not properly paying  its hourly, non-exempt employees the correct overtime rate for each hour worked over forty (40)  hours in workweeks that employees received remuneration in addition to their hourly rate of pay  resulted in unpaid overtime wages for the Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class.   85.  Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were not exempt from the  wage protections of Ohio Law.   86.  Defendants violated the Ohio Wage Act with respect to Named Plaintiff and the  Ohio Rule 23 Class by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at time-and-one-half times their  correct regular rates for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek because Defendants  did not properly calculate their employees’ overtime rate when they received remuneration  payments in addition to their normal hourly rate of pay.    87.  The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not exempt from the wage  protections of Ohio law. Indeed, during relevant times, the Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23  Class Members were not exempt from receiving overtime because, inter alia, they were not  “executive,” “administrative,” “professional,” “outside sales” or “computer” employees, as those  terms are defined under the FLSA.  See O.R.C. § 4111.03(A); see also 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.0, et seq.   88.  Defendants’ repeated and knowing failure to pay overtime wages to the Named  Plaintiff and those similarly situated Ohioans were violations of R.C. §4111.03, and as such,  Defendants jointly acted willfully.    90.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   91.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have  been jointly employed by Defendants.    92.  During relevant times, Defendants were each an entity covered by the OPPA and  the Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been jointly employed by  Defendants within the meaning of the OPPA.    93.  The OPPA requires Defendants to pay Named Plaintiff and Ohio Rule 23 Class all  wages, including unpaid overtime, on or before the first day of each month, for wages earned by  them during the first half of the preceding month ending with the fifteenth day thereof, and on  or before the fifteenth day of each month, for wages earned by them during the last half of the  preceding calendar month. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(A).   94.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class were not paid  all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay within thirty  (30) days of performing the work. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(B).   95.  The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members’ unpaid wages remain  unpaid for more than thirty (30) days beyond their regularly scheduled payday.   96.  The Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been harmed and  continue to be harmed by such unpaid wages.   A. 216(b) Collective Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages.  