34.   Plaintiff brings the First Cause of Action, pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons who have worked as TLs at Sykes  nationwide on or after February 17, 2013, who elect to opt-in to this action (the “FLSA  Collective”).   35.  Sykes is liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly compensate  Plaintiff and other similarly situated TLs.    36.  Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective perform or performed the same  primary duties.   37.  As part of its regular business practice, Sykes has intentionally, willfully, and  repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to  Plaintiff and the members of FLSA Collective.  This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is  not limited to:  (a)  willfully failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff and the members  of the FLSA Collective, premium overtime wages for hours that they  worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek; and  (b)  willfully misclassifying Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective  as exempt from the protections of the FLSA.    38.  Sykes is aware or should have been aware that federal law required it to pay Plaintiff  and the members of the FLSA Collective overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 per  workweek.   40.  Sykes’s unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.   41.  There are many similarly situated current and former TLs who have been  underpaid in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised  notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it.    42.  Those similarly situated employees are known to Sykes, are readily identifiable,  and can be located through Sykes’s records.    43.  Notice of this action should be sent to the FLSA Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b).  44.  Plaintiff brings the Second Cause of Action, a Colorado claim, under Rule 23 of  the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of himself and all others who have worked for  Sykes in Colorado on or after February 17, 2013, and the date of final judgment in this matter (the  “Colorado Rule 23 Class”).   45.  Excluded from the Colorado Rule 23 Class are Sykes, Sykes’s legal  representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at  any time during the class period has had, a controlling interest in Sykes; the Judge(s) to whom  this case is assigned and any member of the Judges’ immediate family; and all persons who will  submit timely and otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the Colorado Rule 23 Class.   46.  The members of the Colorado Rule 23 Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.   48.  Sykes has acted or has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Colorado Rule 23 Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding  declaratory relief with respect to the Colorado Rule 23 Class as a whole.   49.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Colorado Rule 23 Class that  predominate over any questions only affecting them individually and include, but are not limited  to, the following:  (a)  whether Sykes violated the Colorado Wage Laws;  (b)  whether Sykes failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Colorado Rule 23  Class for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek;  (c)  whether Sykes misclassified Plaintiff and the Colorado Rule 23 Class; and  (d)  the nature and extent of class-wide injury and the measure of damages for  those injuries.   50.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Colorado Rule 23 Class which he  seeks to represent.   51.  Plaintiff and all the Colorado Rule 23 Class members work, or have worked, for  Sykes as TLs.   52.  Plaintiff and the Colorado Rule 23 Class members enjoy the same statutory rights  under the Colorado Wage Laws, including to be paid for all hours worked and to be paid  overtime wages.  Plaintiff and the Colorado Rule 23 Class members have all sustained similar  types of damages as a result of Sykes’s failure to comply with the Colorado Wage Laws.   Plaintiff and the Colorado Rule 23 Class members have all been injured in that they have been  under-compensated due to Sykes’s common policies, practices, and patterns of conduct.   54.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation.  The members of the Colorado Rule 23 Class have been damaged  and are entitled to recovery as a result of Sykes’s violations of the Colorado Wage Laws, as well  as their common policies, practices, and procedures.  Although the relative damages suffered by  individual Colorado Rule 23 Class members are not de minimis, such damages are small  compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation.  The individual  plaintiffs lack the financial resources to conduct a thorough examination of Sykes’s  compensation practices and to prosecute vigorously a lawsuit against Sykes to recover such  damages.  In addition, class litigation is superior because it will obviate the need for unduly  duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments about Sykes’s practices.   56.  Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective and the Colorado Rule 23 Class  (collectively, “Class Members”) regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.   57.  Sykes failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members overtime compensation for hours  worked over 40 in a workweek.   58.  Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ primary duties were routine, non-exempt tasks,  including routine inspections of agents’ calls to track quality-control metrics using standardized  forms provided by Sykes; running routine reports regarding call data; and completing forms relating  to computer-generated metrics.     59.  Plaintiff and Class Members’ duties did not differ substantially from the duties of  non-exempt ATLs.   60.  Plaintiff and Class Members did/do not have the authority to hire, fire, promote, or set  employees’ rate of pay or hours of work.     61.  Plaintiff and Class Members do not exercise independent judgment or discretion  about matters of significance.  Rather, Plaintiff and Class Members primarily complete routine  inspections using detailed forms and applying well-established techniques, procedures, and specific  standards.     63.  Sykes did not keep accurate records of hours worked by Plaintiff or Class  Members.   64.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.   65.  Sykes has engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the FLSA, as  described in this Collective Action Complaint.    66.  Plaintiff has consented in writing to be a party to this action, pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).    67.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective were engaged in  commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§  206(a) and 207(a).   68.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in §§ 201 et seq. of the FLSA apply to  Sykes.    69.  At all relevant times, Sykes has been an employer engaged in commerce and/or  the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).    70.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective were employees within  the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 207(a).    72.  Sykes has failed to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective the overtime wages to  which they are entitled under the FLSA.    73.  Sykes’s violations of the FLSA, as described in this Collective Action Complaint,  have been willful and intentional.    74.  Sykes has not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with respect to  its compensation of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.    75.  Because Sykes’s violations of the FLSA has been willful, a three-year statute of  limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.    76.  As a result of Sykes’s willful violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the FLSA  Collective have suffered damages by being denied overtime wages in accordance with 29 U.S.C.  §§ 201 et seq.    77.  As a result of Sykes’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective have been  deprived of overtime compensation and other wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are  entitled to recover of such amounts, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees,  costs and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   78.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.   79.  Plaintiff brings this count as a Rule 23 class action on behalf of himself and the  Colorado Rule 23 Class.   81.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff and the Colorado Rule 23 Class members have  been “employees” as that term is defined by the CWCA because they performed labor or  services for the benefit of Sykes in which Sykes commanded when, where and how much labor  or services would be performed.  C.R.S. § 8-4-101(5).    82.  Sykes has been Plaintiff and the Colorado Rule 23 Class members’ “employer”  within the meaning of the CWCA because it employed Plaintiff and the members of the  Colorado Rule 23 Class in Colorado.  C.R.S. § 8-4-101(6).    83.  Sykes engaged in a widespread policy, pattern or practice of violating the  Colorado Wage Laws, as described in this Collective and Class Action Complaint.   84.  Sykes violated Colorado law, in relevant part, by failing to pay overtime to  Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as required by the Colorado Wage Laws.   85.  The overtime premiums and wages that Sykes denied Plaintiff and the Colorado  Rule 23 Class members constitute earned wages or other compensation owed to Plaintiff and the  Colorado Rule 23 Class.  C.R.S. § 8-4-109.   86.  Sykes failed to keep, make, preserve, maintain, and furnish accurate records of  time worked by Plaintiff and the Colorado Rule 23 Class members, and failed to furnish to each  of them their wage and hour records showing all wages earned and due for all work performed  for labor or services rendered.   87.  Sykes’s violations of the Colorado Wage Laws, as described in this Collective  and Class Action Complaint, have been willful and intentional.   89.  Plaintiff and the Colorado Rule 23 Class members are entitled to recover unpaid  wages, penalties, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment  interest, as provided by law.  COLORADO WAGE LAWS – UNPAID OVERTIME   (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Colorado Rule 23 Class)   Fair Labor Standards Act – Overtime Wages  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective)  