100. Plaintiff incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.  101. Plaintiff brings his overtime claims arising under the OMFWSA as a Rule 23  class action on behalf of the following class:  Ohio Class:  are all current and former day rate paid inspectors and all  employees in substantially similar positions and/or with similar job titles who  worked for Defendant in Ohio at any time during the three-year period before  the filing of this Complaint to present.   102.  Plaintiff believes there are more than 50 individuals that fit into the class.   103.  Defendant’s employ more than 100 inspectors in Ohio.   104.  Defendant’s employ more than 100 workers with the same job title as  Plaintiff.   105.  The members of the classes are so numerous that their individual joinder is  impractical.   106.  The identity of the members of the Ohio Class is readily discernible from  Defendant’s records.  107.  Plaintiff and the proposed Ohio Class on one hand, and Defendant on the  other, have a commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedy sought, namely  back wages plus penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and the cost of this lawsuit.  16  108.  Common questions of law and fact exist to all members of the class. These  questions predominate over the questions affecting individual class members. These  common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited, to the following:   a) Whether Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members worked hours in excess of  forty per work week;  b) Whether Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members were denied overtime pay at  a rate not less than one and one half times their regular rate as proscribed by  Ohio law;  c) Whether Defendant failed to properly classify Plaintiff and Ohio Class  Members as exempt under Ohio law; and  d) The calculation of damages.  109. These and other common questions of law and fact, which are common to  the members of the classes, predominate over any individual questions affecting only  individual members of the class.  110. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class because Plaintiff was  not paid overtime wages in accordance with Ohio law and because Defendant classified  him as exempt from overtime, just as was done with respect to the Ohio Class Members.    111. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class because his interests do not  conflict with the interests of the classes that he seeks to represent. Plaintiff has retained  competent counsel, highly experienced in complex class action litigation, and they intend  to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the classes will be fairly and adequately  protected by Plaintiff and his counsel.   17  112. The class action applying Ohio state law is superior to other available means  of fair and efficient adjudication of the state law claims of Plaintiff and the Class Members.  The injuries suffered by each individual class member are relatively small in comparison  to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of a complex and extensive litigation  necessitated by Defendant’s conduct. It would be virtually impossible for members of the  class individually to redress effectively the wrongs done to them; even if the members of  the class could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized  litigation presents the possibility for inconsistent or contradictory judgments.  Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and to the court  system presented by the complex, legal and factual issues of the case. By contrast, the class  action presents far fewer logistical issues and provides the benefits of a single adjudication,  economy of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.  113. The operative question in this case is whether the workers in question are  exempt from overtime wages.    IX.  24.  Defendant Cleveland Integrity Service, Inc., offers its clients a range of  services to assist in the construction and implementation of pipeline, refinery, power plants,  and mechanical integrity projects.  The scope of these services ranges from planning,  estimating, surveying, development, management, inspection, startup and commissioning.     25.  Defendant is a staffing company.    26.  Defendant staffs inspectors to various projects.    27.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant under the job titles of Utility Inspector, Safety  Inspector, and Quality Assurance Auditor.     28.  Regardless of Defendant’s job titles, Plaintiff performed inspection work for  Defendant.    29.  Plaintiff was an inspector while working for Defendant and as such he is  identified as an “inspector” throughout this Complaint as are the FLSA Collective Class  Members and the Ohio Class Members.    30.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately May of 2016 to  November of 2016 and again from May of 2017 to October of 2017.   31.  Defendant classified Plaintiff as an employee.   6   32.  Defendant paid Plaintiff a day rate.    33.  As an inspector, Plaintiff was responsible for observing the completion of  pipeline installation by Defendant’s customers to ensure that such work conformed to  industry safety standards.   34.  For his labor, Defendant paid Plaintiff a day rate but did not pay him overtime  for his hours in excess of forty per week.  In other words, Defendant misclassified Plaintiff  as exempt.   35.  Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee.    36.  Defendant paid hundreds of other inspectors classified as employees  throughout the United States on the same day rate compensation system as Plaintiff.   37.  Defendant has the following offices:   a. 370690 East Old Hwy 64, Cleveland, OK 74020.  b. 7302 Northland Dr., Stanwood, MI 49346.  c. 2500 City West Blvd. Ste. 300, Houston, TX 77042.  d. 207 Flatiron Dr., Buffalo, WY 82834.   38.  In the last three years, Defendant has employed day rate paid inspectors in  the following nonexclusive list of states:  a. Texas;  b. Ohio;   c. Colorado;   d. Michigan;   e. Wyoming;   7  f. Oklahoma;   g. Kansas;   h. Missouri;   i. Wisconsin;   j. West Virginia;  k. Pennsylvania; and   l. Illinois.   39.  Plaintiff and other inspectors commonly work in excess of 12 hours each day.     40.  Inspectors usually work five to seven days each week, for a schedule that  equates into workweeks well exceeding 40 hours.   41.  Plaintiff typically worked five to seven days a week at twelve to fifteen hours  per day.    42.  However, despite working overtime hours, Defendant does not pay its  inspectors overtime because it pays the same flat day rate regardless on the number of hours  worked.     43.  No exemption in the FLSA shelters Defendant from paying overtime to its  inspectors.   44.  Inspectors like Plaintiff are not guaranteed a set number of days to work per  week.   45.  Inspectors like Plaintiff are not guaranteed a set weekly payment.   46.  Inspectors are paid on a day rate basis, not on a salary basis.    47.  Plaintiff was paid on a day rate basis, not on a salary basis.   8   48.  If an inspector did not work on any given day, such as because of an illness,  the lack of available work, weather, or a company closure, that inspector would not be paid  for that day’s work.    49.  Plaintiff was not paid time-and-a-half for all hours worked over forty in a  given workweek.    50.  Plaintiff worked overtime as defined in the FLSA.    51.  Other inspectors employed by Defendant worked overtime as defined in the  70.   Plaintiff incorporates all allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.    71.   Defendant’s practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Class  Members time-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek  violates the FLSA.  29 U.S.C. § 207.     11   72.   None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA regulating the duty of  employers to pay overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at  which its employees are paid are applicable to Defendant, Plaintiff, or the FLSA Collective  Class Members.    VI.  73.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding  paragraphs.   74.  Plaintiff has actual knowledge that FLSA Collective Class Members have  also been denied overtime pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek as a  result of Defendant’s misclassification of its employees.     75. Plaintiff’s knowledge is based on his personal work experience and through  communications with other workers of Defendant.  Plaintiff personally knows of other  inspectors under the same compensation structure at multiple job sites for Defendant.   76.  Other workers similarly situated to the Plaintiff worked for Defendant  throughout the United States but were not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half  their regular rates of pay when those hours exceeded forty (40) hours in a workweek.     77.  Although Defendant permitted and/or required FLSA Collective Class  Members to work in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek, Defendant denied them full  compensation for their hours worked over forty (40).   78.  Defendant misclassified and continues to misclassify FLSA Collective Class  Members as exempt employees.    12   79.  FLSA Collective Class Members perform or have performed the same or  similar work as Plaintiff and were misclassified as exempt by Defendant.    80.  Plaintiff had the same job duties as other employees of Defendant who had  the same job title as Plaintiff and worked for Defendant at any time during the three years  prior to the filing of this lawsuit.    81.  FLSA Collective Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime  pay under the FLSA.   82.  As such, FLSA Collective Class Members are similar to Plaintiff in terms of  relevant job duties, pay structure, misclassification as exempt employees and/or the denial  of overtime pay.   83.  Defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation at the rate required by the  FLSA results from generally applicable policies or practices and does not depend on the  personal circumstances of any FLSA Collective Class Member.   84.  Defendant employed at least 100 other inspectors within the last 3 years who  were paid on a day rate.    85.  Defendant employed at least 200 other inspectors within the last 3 years who  were paid on a day rate.    86.  Defendant employed at least 400 other inspectors with the same job title as  Plaintiff who were not paid overtime.    87.  Defendant employed at least 500 other inspectors with the same job title as  Plaintiff who worked overtime for at least one week during their employment with  13  Defendant and were not paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all  overtime hours worked.    88.  The experiences of Plaintiff, with respect to his pay, hours, and duties are  typical of the experiences of the FLSA Collective Class Members.   89.  The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each FLSA Collective  Class Member does not prevent collective treatment.   90.  All FLSA Collective Class Members, irrespective of their particular job  requirements, are entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty  (40) in a workweek.   91.  Although the exact amount of damages may vary among the FLSA  Collective Class Members, the damages for the FLSA Collective Class Members can be  easily calculated by a simple formula. The claims of all FLSA Collective Class Members  arise from a common nucleus of facts.  Liability is based on a systematic course of wrongful  conduct by Defendant that caused harm to all FLSA Collective Class Members.    92.  As such, the class of similarly situated plaintiffs for the FLSA Collective  Class is properly defined as follows:   All current and former inspectors, and all employees in substantially  similar positions and/or with similar job titles, that worked for  Defendant throughout the United States at any time during the three- year period before the filing of this Complaint to present that were  paid on a day rate.     93.  The similarly situated employees are known to Defendant, are readily  identifiable, and may be located through Defendant’s records, as well as the records of any  payroll companies that Defendant utilizes. Defendant employs many FLSA Collective  14  Members throughout the United States. These similarly situated employees may be readily  notified of this action through direct U.S. mail, text message, email, and/or other  appropriate means, 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, and attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.   94.  Plaintiff incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.   95.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an “employer”  within the meaning of the OMFWSA.  At all relevant times, Defendant has employed and  continues to employ, “employees,” including the Ohio Class Members and Plaintiff, within  the meaning the OMFWSA.   96.  The OMFWSA requires payment of one and one-half times the employee’s  regular rate for each hour worked per week over 40 hours.  O.R.C. § 4111.03.   97.  In denying compensation at the requisite Ohio overtime rate, Defendant  violated the OMFWSA.   98.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff  and the Ohio Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of income and  other damages.  Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members are entitled to liquidated damages,  attorneys’ fees, and costs incurred in connection with this claim.   99.  Having violated the OMFWSA, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and Ohio  Class Members pursuant to O.R.C. § 4111.10 for the full amount of their unpaid overtime  15  and for costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  Additionally, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff  and Ohio Class Members for an amount equal to twice their unpaid wages.  O.R.C. §  STANDARDS ACT, O.R.C. § 4111.01, et seq.    