(BREACH OF CONTRACT)   (UNJUST ENRICHMENT)   (VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT)   40.  Defendant has intentionally and repeatedly engaged in a practice of improperly  and unlawfully failing to pay their non-exempt employees including, but not limited to, the  Plaintiffs and the collective group of similarly-situated employees who worked at Defendant’s  Nashville, Tennessee location for work performed in violation of the provisions of the FLSA and  corresponding federal regulations.    41.  Specifically, Defendant demanded that Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated  to Plaintiffs, perform and/or complete more work than is and/or was humanly possible to  accomplish during their regular scheduled shifts.  For instance, non-exempt employees holding  9  customer service positions such as Plaintiffs Patton and Kitts were expected to assist customers  beyond their shifts, including, but not limited to, technical support, answering billing questions  or training customers on the WebEx system.  Plaintiff Harrison was similarly asked to work  through lunch or beyond her scheduled shift without being compensated for her time.   42.    Defendant’s employee handbook, revised as recently as August 2013 states  that “[non-exempt] employees are required to be paid overtime for all overtime hours worked,”  and that “[t]he Company provides compensation for all overtime hours worked by nonexempt  employees in accordance with state and federal law.”   43.  Plaintiffs, and other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees similarly situated to  Plaintiffs, frequently performed work both before and after their scheduled shifts at work; during  their so-called “lunch” breaks; and while at their personal homes and places of residence, for all  of which they received no compensation from Defendant, much less lawful overtime pay.    44.  At all times material to this action, Defendant had knowledge of and was fully  aware that Plaintiffs, and other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees similarly situated to  Plaintiffs in Defendant’s Nashville, Tennessee office, routinely worked more than forty (40)  hours per week without payment of overtime compensation.   45.  Plaintiff Patton consistently worked in excess of forty (40) hours in each  workweek between December 2013 and September 2014 while she was responsible for  approximately 650 accounts in California.    46.  As evidenced by the emails delineated below, Plaintiff Patton frequently  worked past her scheduled shift on numerous occasions during her time as an employee of  Defendant, including:  10  A.  February 5, 2014 at 10:16 p.m., Plaintiff Patton sent an email to a  customer; her shift ended at 5:00 p.m.;  59.  Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in  Paragraphs 1-58 herein.  By its actions alleged herein, Defendant willfully, knowingly, and/or  recklessly violated the provisions of the FLSA and corresponding federal regulations.    60.  Upon information and belief, there are numerous other similarly-situated  present and former employees of Defendant who have been improperly compensated in violation  of the FLSA and who would benefit from the issuance of court-supervised notice of the present  lawsuit.  Those similarly-situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily identifiable  and locatable through Defendant’s records.     61.  Plaintiffs assert their FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) as a  collective action on behalf of the following opt-in collective class members:  17  All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees at Defendant’s  Nashville, Tennessee office, for the three years preceding the filing of this  lawsuit, who were employed or hired as, or holding a position titled Sales  Account Representatives, who performed uncompensated work activities  related to Defendant’s services, as a result of Defendant’s common policy  or practice alleged herein (the “Collective Class.”).    62.  Plaintiffs seek to pursue their claims on behalf of all individuals who opt into  this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).     63.  Plaintiffs and the Collective Class are “similarly situated” as that term is  defined in 29 U.S.C. §216(b) because, inter alia, Defendant did not pay for all hours worked, as  mandated by the FLSA.     64.  All, or virtually all, of the legal and factual issues that will arise in litigating  these collective action claims are common to Plaintiffs and the Collective Class.  These issues  include: 1) whether and to what extent Defendant did not pay for all hours worked, 2) whether  and to what extent these unpaid hours include hours worked over forty (40) in a week, and 3)  whether and to what extent such overtime hours were compensated at one and one-half times the  regular rate of pay.   65.  Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23 of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following individuals:  All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees at Defendant’s  Nashville, Tennessee office, for the six years preceding the filing of this  lawsuit, who were employed or hired as, or holding a position titled non- exempt Sales Account Representatives and performed uncompensated  work activities related to ServiceSource’s services, as a result of  Defendant’s common policy or practice alleged herein (the “Rule 23  Class.”).   66.  Plaintiffs are members of the class they seek to represent.   18   67.  The Rule 23 Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is  impractical, satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).    68.  All members of the Rule 23 Class share the same pivotal questions of law and  fact, thereby satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).  Specifically, all members of the Rule 23 Class  share the questions of: 1) whether and to what extent Defendant did not pay for all hours worked,  2) whether and to what extent these unpaid hours include hours worked over forty (40) in a  week, 3) whether and to what extent such overtime hours were compensated at one and one-half  times the regular rate of pay, 4) whether Defendant’s actions constituted a breach of contract,  and 5) whether Defendant’s actions constituted unjust enrichment.   69.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Class, thus satisfying  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).  Defendant’s failure to pay for all time worked was not the result of any  Plaintiff-specific circumstances.  Rather, it arose from Defendant’s common payroll policies,  which Defendant applied to all employees at Defendant’s Nashville, Tennessee office employed  or hired as, or holding a position titled Sales Account Representatives.    70.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  Rule 23 Class.  Further, Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel experienced in representing  classes of employees against their employers related to their employers’ failure to pay them  properly under the law, thus satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).     71.  By consistently failing to pay its employees for all hours worked, Defendant  has created a scenario where questions of law and fact common to Rule 23 Class members  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.  Thus, a class action is  superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of this matter.   19  Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue their claims as a class action, pursuant to Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23(b)(3).    72.  Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in  Paragraphs 1-71 herein.  Based on actions alleged herein, Defendant willfully, knowingly, and/or  recklessly violated the provisions of the FLSA and corresponding federal regulations.   73.  Defendant willfully and intentionally engaged in a widespread pattern and  practice of violating the provisions of the FLSA, as detailed herein, by endeavoring to prevent  the proper compensation of Plaintiffs and other present and former, similarly-situated employees  in accordance with §207 of the FLSA.    74.  Plaintiffs, as well as all similarly-situated employees, were victims of a  uniform and facility-wide compensation policy and/or practice that failed to record and  compensate all time worked by employees in Defendant’s Nashville, Tennessee office.     75.  The uncompensated time at issue is the time worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per week.    76.  The FLSA requires that covered employees receive overtime compensation  “not less than one and one-half times” their regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty (40)  in a week.  See 29 U.S.C. §207.   77.  Defendant has violated the FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the  Collective Class on a daily basis for all time worked, including overtime.     78.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs, as well as all  others similarly situated, have suffered damages by failing to receive their lawful overtime wages  in accordance with §207 of the FLSA.  20   79.  Defendant made no good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with respect to  the unlawful practices and/or policies to which it subjected Plaintiffs or other similarly-situated  employees.    80.  Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay its employees their  lawful overtime wages in accordance with §207 of the FLSA.   81.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), attached to and filed with this Complaint as  Exhibit H are the Consents to Become Party Plaintiff signed by the above-named Representative  Plaintiffs.  82.   Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in  Paragraphs 1-81 herein.     83.  Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of all members of the proposed class.    84.  Plaintiffs and the class members entered into employment agreements with  Defendant whereby they agreed to perform work for Defendant in exchange for being  compensated for all time worked.    85.  The agreements were made between parties capable of contracting and  contained mutual obligations and valid consideration.    86.  Plaintiffs and the class members have performed all conditions precedent, if  any, required of them under these agreements.    87.  Defendant failed and refused to perform their obligations in accordance with  the terms and conditions of the agreement by failing to pay Plaintiffs and the class member for  all time worked on behalf of Defendant.    21  88.  Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in  Paragraphs 1-87 herein.     89.  Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of all members of the proposed classes.    90.  Defendant is obligated to pay Plaintiffs and the class members for all time  worked under Tennessee law.     91.  Because of the wrongful activities described above, including the failure to pay  wages owed, Defendant has received the benefit of Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ unpaid  labor and have therefore received money belonging to the Plaintiffs and the classes.     92.  Defendant was aware of and appreciated the benefit Plaintiffs and similarly  situated employees conferred on them.     93.  Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a result of its accepting the work of  Plaintiffs and the classes without proper compensation for all time worked.  It would be unjust to  allow Defendant to enjoy the fruits of such employees’ labor without proper compensation.    FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE  