15.  As a leading healthcare information technology firm, PTP provides training and  support to medical facilities in connection with the implementation of new electronic  recordkeeping systems. PTP employs consultants, such as Plaintiffs, who perform such training  and support services throughout the United States.   16.  PTP’s financial results are significantly driven by the number of consultants  performing training and support services for PTP’s customers, and the fees that PTP charges the  customers for these services.     17.  Between March 2015 and January 2016, Carey was assigned by PTP to provide  educational and support services to healthcare staff at Lahey Hospital in Burlington,  Massachusetts; Ohio Health in Columbus, Ohio; SouthCoast Medical Centers in Boston,  Massachusetts; and St. Luke’s Hospital in Allentown, Pennsylvania.   18.  Between July 2014 and 2015, Okakpu was assigned by PTP to provide  educational and support services to healthcare staff at St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma;  University of North Carolina; CHI Franciscan Hospital in Seattle, Washington; and Ohio Health  in Columbus, Ohio.     19.  Between December 2014 and November 2015, Mathaun was assigned by PTP to  provide educational and support services to healthcare staff at South Coast Hospital in Fall  River, Massachusetts; St. Alexius Medical Center in Bismarck, North Dakota; Caro Mount  5  Regional Medical Center in Gastonia, North Carolina; Ohio Health in Columbus, Ohio; CHI  Franciscan Hospital in Tacoma, Washington; and University of North Carolina.     20.  Plaintiffs were paid solely on a straight hourly basis for hours over forty and were  paid only for the time billed to PTP’s customers, NOT for all overtime hours actually worked.   Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes Routinely Worked in Excess of 40 Hours a Week   21.  Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes routinely worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per workweek, but were not paid overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.   22.  Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes were often required to work twelve (12)  hours a day, seven (7) days a week.   23.  For instance, while working for PTP in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in July 2014, Okakpu  and the other consultants worked, on average, twelve (12) hours a day, seven (7) days a week.  Okakpu was paid only a straight hourly rate during this time.   24.  Although Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes frequently were required,  permitted, or encouraged to work more than forty (40) hours per week, PTP failed to pay them  one and one-half (1 ½) times their regular pay rate for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours  per week, as required by the FLSA and Pennsylvania and Massachusetts law.   25.  Instead, Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes were paid a straight hourly rate for  hours that they worked, regardless of whether they worked more than forty (40) hours in a week.  Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes were not paid on a salary basis.  Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes are not Exempt “Computer Employees” under the  32.  Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a collective action  on behalf of the FLSA Class defined above.     33.  Plaintiffs desire to pursue their FLSA claims on behalf of all individuals who opt- in to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).     34.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members are “similarly situated” as that term is  used in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) because, inter alia, all such individuals have been subject to PTP’s  common business and compensation practices as described herein, and, as a result of such  9  practices, have not been paid the full and legally mandated overtime premium for hours worked  over forty (40) during the workweek. Resolution of this action requires inquiry into common  facts, including, inter alia, PTP’s common misclassification, compensation and payroll practices.   35.  Specifically, PTP did not compensate Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class one-and-a- half (1 ½) times the regular rate for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.   36.  The similarly situated employees are known to PTP, are readily identifiable, and  can easily be located through PTP’s business and human resources records.     37.  PTP employs many FLSA Class Members throughout the United States.  These  similarly situated employees may be readily notified of this action through U.S. Mail and/or  other means, and allowed to opt in to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose  of collectively adjudicating their claims for overtime compensation, liquidated damages (or,  alternatively, interest) and attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.   38.  The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for all hours worked  in excess of forty (40) hours per week at a rate not less than one and one-half (1 ½) times the  regular rate at which he is employed. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).  39.  Plaintiff Carey brings Count II of this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23 on behalf of herself and the Pennsylvania Class defined above.   40.  The members of the Pennsylvania Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are more than forty (40) members  of the Pennsylvania Class.   41.  Plaintiff Carey will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  Pennsylvania Class because there is no conflict between the claims of Plaintiff Carey and those  10  of the Pennsylvania Class, and Plaintiff Carey’s claims are typical of the claims of the  Pennsylvania Class. Plaintiff Carey’s counsel are competent and experienced in litigating class  actions and other complex litigation matters, including wage and hour cases like this one.   42.  There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed Pennsylvania Class,  which predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members, including,  without limitation, whether PTP has violated and continues to violate Pennsylvania law through  its policy or practice of not paying its hourly workers overtime compensation.   43.  Plaintiff Carey’s claims are typical of the claims of the Pennsylvania Class  Members in the following ways, without limitation: (a) Plaintiff Carey is a member of the  Pennsylvania Class; (b) Plaintiff Carey’s claims arise out of the same policies, practices and  course of conduct that form the basis of the claims of the Pennsylvania Class; (c) Plaintiff  Carey’s claims are based on the same legal and remedial theories as those of the Pennsylvania  Class and involve similar factual circumstances; (d) there are no conflicts between the interests  of Plaintiff Carey and the Pennsylvania Class Members; and (e) the injuries suffered by Plaintiff  Carey are similar to the injuries suffered by the Pennsylvania Class Members.   44.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because questions  of law and fact common to the Pennsylvania Class predominate over any questions affecting  only individual Class Members.   45.  Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of  similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously,  efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions  would entail. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action  11  that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the  fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Pennsylvania Class Members are readily  identifiable from PTP’s own records. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of  the Pennsylvania Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with  respect to individual Pennsylvania Class Members that would establish incompatible standards  of conduct for PTP.   46.  A class action is superior to other available methods for adjudication of this  controversy because joinder of all members is impractical. Further, the amounts at stake for  many of the Pennsylvania Class Members, while substantial, are not great enough to enable them  to maintain separate suits against PTP.   47.  Without a class action, PTP will retain the benefit of its wrongdoing, which will  result in further damages to Plaintiff Carey and the Pennsylvania Class. Plaintiff Carey envisions  no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.  48.  Plaintiffs Carey and Mathaun bring Count III of this action as a class action  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of themselves and the Massachusetts Class defined  above.   49.  The members of the Massachusetts Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are more than forty (40) members  of the Massachusetts Class.   50.  Plaintiffs Carey and Mathaun will fairly and adequately represent and protect the  interests of the Massachusetts Class because there is no conflict between the claims of Plaintiffs  Carey and Mathaun and those of the Massachusetts Class, and Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the  12  claims of the Massachusetts Class. Plaintiffs’ counsel are competent and experienced in litigating  class actions and other complex litigation matters, including wage and hour cases like this one.   51.  There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed Massachusetts Class,  which predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members, including,  without limitation, whether PTP has violated and continues to violate Massachusetts law through  its policy or practice of not paying its hourly workers overtime compensation.   52.  Plaintiffs Carey and Mathaun’s claims are typical of the claims of the  Massachusetts Class Members in the following ways, without limitation: (a) Plaintiffs Carey and  Mathaun are members of the Massachusetts Class; (b) Plaintiffs Carey and Mathaun’s claims  arise out of the same policies, practices and course of conduct that form the basis of the claims of  the Massachusetts Class; (c) Plaintiffs Carey and Mathaun’s claims are based on the same legal  and remedial theories as those of the Massachusetts Class and involve similar factual  circumstances; (d) there are no conflicts between the interests of Plaintiffs Carey and Mathaun  and the Massachusetts Class Members; and (e) the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs Carey and  Mathaun are similar to the injuries suffered by the Massachusetts Class Members.   53.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because questions  of law and fact common to the Massachusetts Class predominate over any questions affecting  only individual Class Members.   54.  Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of  similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously,  efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions  would entail. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action  13  that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the  fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Massachusetts Class Members are readily  identifiable from PTP’s own records. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of  the Massachusetts Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with  respect to individual Massachusetts Class Members that would establish incompatible standards  of conduct for PTP.   55.  A class action is superior to other available methods for adjudication of this  controversy because joinder of all members is impractical. Further, the amounts at stake for  many of the Massachusetts Class Members, while substantial, are not great enough to enable  them to maintain separate suits against PTP.   56.  Without a class action, PTP will retain the benefit of its wrongdoing, which will  result in further damages to Plaintiffs Carey and Mathaun and the Massachusetts Class. Plaintiffs  Carey and Mathaun envision no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.  57.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   58.  The FLSA defines “employer” broadly to include “any person acting directly or  indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee...” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).    59.  PTP is subject to the wage requirements of the FLSA because PTP is an  “employer” under 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).   60.  At all relevant times, PTP has been an “employer” engaged in interstate  commerce and/or in the production of goods for commerce, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29  68.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   69.  The Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 (“PMWA”) requires that covered  employees be compensated for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week at a rate  not less than one and one-half (1 ½) times the regular rate at which he is employed. See 43 P.S. §  333.104(c) and 34 Pa. Code § 231.41.  15   70.  PTP is subject to the overtime requirements of the PMWA because PTP is an  employer under 43 P.S. § 333.103(g).   71.  During all relevant times, Plaintiff Carey and the Pennsylvania Class members  were covered employees entitled to the above-described PMWA’s protections. See 43 P.S. §  333.103(h).   72.  PTP’s compensation scheme that is applicable to Plaintiff Carey and the  Pennsylvania Class members failed to comply with either 43 P.S. § 333.104(c) or 34 Pa. Code §  231.41.   73.  The PMWA does not contain an exemption from overtime pay for any type of  computer employees.  See 43 P.S. § 333.105.   74.  PTP failed to compensate Plaintiff Carey and the Pennsylvania Class Members at  a rate of one and one-half (1 ½) times their regular hourly wage for hours worked in excess of  forty (40) hours per week, in violation of 43 P.S. § 333.104(c) and 34 Pa. Code § 231.41.   75.  Pursuant 43 P.S. § 333.113, employers, such as PTP, who fail to pay an employee  wages in conformance with the PMWA shall be liable to the employee for the wages or expenses  that were not paid, court costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in recovering the unpaid wages.  76.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   77.  The Massachusetts Overtime Law does not contain an exemption from overtime  pay for any type of computer employees.  See Mass. Gen. L. c. 151 § 1A.   78.  Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in failing to pay Plaintiffs and class  members overtime wages which they earned as a result of their employment violates the  16  Massachusetts overtime law, Mass. Gen. L. c. 151 §§ 1, 1A.  This claim is brought pursuant to  Mass. Gen. L. c. 151 § 1B.   79.  Pursuant to the requirements of Mass. Gen. L. c. 149, § 150, Plaintiffs have filed  administrative complaints with the office of the Massachusetts Attorney General.  The Attorney  General’s office issued a right to sue letter on June 5, 2017.  FLSA – Overtime Wages  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class)   Violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff Carey and the Pennsylvania Class)   Violation of Massachusetts Wage Laws  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs Carey and Mathaun and the Massachusetts Class)  