10.  Plaintiffs and those they seek to represent in this action were employed to perform  work on various jobs for Defendant as part of its contracting business.   11.  Defendant paid Plaintiffs and those they seek to represent “straight time”—i.e.,  the same hourly wage for every hour worked, regardless of whether such hours were in excess of  40 in a workweek.   12.  Plaintiffs and those they seek to represent regularly worked in excess of 40 hours  in a workweek.   13.  Defendant labeled the hourly payments for hours in excess of 40 in a workweek  as “bonus” payments on the pay statements of Plaintiffs and those they seek to represent.   14.  A pay statement of Charles Clouse from July 2017, which shows such a “bonus”  payment, is attached hereto as Exhibit A as an example of the pay practice which applied to  Plaintiffs and those they seek to represent.   15.  The “bonus” payment of $143.00 shown on Exhibit A is actually a payment for  13 hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek made at Plaintiff Clouse’s then-current hourly  rate of $11 per hour ($11/hour x 13 hours = $143.00).   16.  The FLSA and KWHA require employers to pay employees at one and one-half  times their regular rate of pay for all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek.   17.  By failing to pay Plaintiffs and those they seek to represent at one and one-half  times their regular rate of pay for all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek, Defendant violated the  overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and KWHA.   18.  Defendant labeled these straight-time hourly payments for hours over 40 in a  workweek, which it made to Plaintiffs and those they seek to represent at their regular rate of  pay, as “bonus” payments, in order to conceal its violation of the overtime pay requirements of  Case: 5:20-cv-00011-KKC   Doc #: 1   Filed: 01/10/20   Page: 3 of 9 - Page ID#: 3 4  the FLSA and KWHA.   19.  Defendant also continued these practices despite formal and informal complaints  by Plaintiffs about not receiving time-and-a-half and despite inquiries and investigations by the  Kentucky Labor Cabinet.   20.  Accordingly, Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and those they  seek to represent were entitled to one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours over  40 in a workweek and therefore acted willfully in failing to compensate all work time by these  employees at the proper overtime rate.    21.  Plaintiffs asserts their FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a collective  action on behalf of the following individuals:  All current and former hourly-paid employees of Defendant at any time since  January 10, 2017.  (the “Collective Class”).   22.  Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims should proceed as a collective action because Plaintiffs  and other similarly situated employees were paid in the same manner as described herein, and  are, therefore, “similarly situated” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and the  associated decisional law.  23.  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 class of individuals:  All current and former hourly-paid employees of Defendant at any time since  January 10, 2015.1  (the “Rule 23 Class”).  1  The statute of limitations under the KWHA is five years. KRS 413.120(2).  Case: 5:20-cv-00011-KKC   Doc #: 1   Filed: 01/10/20   Page: 4 of 9 - Page ID#: 4 5   24.  Plaintiffs are members of the Rule 23 Class they seek to represent.   25.  Since January 9, 2015, Defendant has employed more than 50 individuals who it  paid in the manner described above and who therefore fall within the Rule 23 Class definition.  Thus, the Rule 23 Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is impractical,  satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).   26.  Plaintiffs and the members of the Rule 23 Class share the same pivotal questions  of law and fact, satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the  members of the Rule 23 Class all overtime wages owed, pursuant to the same policies and in the  same manner. As a result, the Rule 23 Class shares several factual and legal questions, including,  for example: (1) whether they were entitled to one and one-half times their regular rate for hours  over 40 in a workweek; and (2) whether Defendant violated the KWHA by paying purported  “bonus” payments at their regular rate of pay for hours over 40 in a workweek.   27.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Class, satisfying Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Defendant’s violation of the overtime pay requirements of the KWHA was not  the result of any Plaintiff-specific circumstances. Rather, it arose from Defendant’s common pay  policies and practices, which Defendant applied generally to all of the hourly-paid employees  who worked on jobs as part of its contracting business, including Plaintiffs. Thus, in advancing  their own claims, Plaintiffs will also be advancing the claims of the Rule 23 Class.   28.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Rule  23 Class, satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs’ interests are shared with the Rule 23  Class and Plaintiffs have no interests that conflict with those of the Rule 23 Class. Furthermore,  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.  Case: 5:20-cv-00011-KKC   Doc #: 1   Filed: 01/10/20   Page: 5 of 9 - Page ID#: 5 6   29.  By failing to pay hourly paid employees all required overtime wages pursuant to  its common pay practices and policies, Defendant has created a scenario where questions of law  and fact common to the Rule 23 Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual  members. Thus, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this matter. Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue their claims as a class action, pursuant  to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  30.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   31.  Plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of themselves and members of the Collective  Class who opt into this action by filing a consent form, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   32.  Plaintiffs and the Collective Class are employees entitled to the FLSA’s  protections.   33.  Defendant is an employer covered by the FLSA.   34.  The FLSA requires that covered employees receive overtime compensation “not  less than one and one-half times” their regular rate of pay for hours over 40 in a workweek.  37.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   38.  Plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of themselves and members of the Rule 23  Class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.   39.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class are employees entitled to the KWHA’s  protections.   40.  Defendant is an employer covered by the KWHA.   41.  The KWHA requires that covered employees receive overtime compensation “not  less than one and one-half times” their regular rate of pay for hours over 40 in a workweek. KRS  337.285.   42.  Defendant pays Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class the same hourly rate for every  hour worked including hours over 40 in a workweek and does not pay them at one and one-half  times their regular rate of pay for hours over 40 in a workweek, in violation of the KWHA.   43.  In violating the KWHA, Defendant has acted willfully and with reckless disregard  of clearly applicable KWHA provisions, for example, by seeking to conceal its violation on the  pay statements of Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class members and by ignoring formal and informal  complaints from Plaintiffs and the Kentucky Labor Cabinet.  Case: 5:20-cv-00011-KKC   Doc #: 1   Filed: 01/10/20   Page: 2 of 9 - Page ID#: 2 3   VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME REQUIREMENTS OF THE KWHA   VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLSA  