(FLSA Overtime Violations)   (Ohio Class)   (Ohio Overtime Violations)   11.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an “employer” within the meaning of the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), and corresponding provisions of Ohio law including the Ohio overtime  compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03.   12.  Defendant’s current or former EMTs, Paramedics, Field Training Officers, and  Wheelchair Car Drivers (the “Putative Class”) are similarly situated to Plaintiff and may join this  case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Those current and former Putative Class members who were  or are employed in Ohio are part of the Ohio Class.   13.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an enterprise within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.  § 203(r), and an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).  Defendant’s Business   14.  Defendant provides emergency and non-emergency medical transportation to its  clients around the United States. Defendant has hundreds of offices and/or sub-stations throughout  the United States and thousands of employees.   Hourly Employees’ Compensation   15.  Plaintiff, the Putative Class members who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b), and the members of the Ohio Class, were paid hourly wages and were provided a signing  bonus.  The signing bonus was non-discretionary and included as part of the Putative Class’ taxable  earnings.   16.  Defendant could require repayment of the signing bonus at any time during the first  year of employment if Plaintiff or the Putative Class voluntarily or involuntarily terminated his or  4  her employment. Defendant could also require repayment of the signing bonus under other  circumstances.   17.  The express purpose of providing the signing bonus to the Putative Class members  was to encourage the Putative Class members to become and remain employed with Defendant for  at least one year.   18.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class frequently worked more than forty (40) hours in a  single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA and the Ohio wage- and-hour statute.  Defendant’s Miscalculation of Overtime Compensation   19.  The FLSA, as well as Ohio law, required Defendant to pay overtime compensation  to Plaintiff and the Putative Class at one and one-half times their “regular rate,” and to include in  the calculation of their regular rates “all remunerations for employment paid to, or on behalf of,  the employee,” including the signing bonus.  29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(3); 29 C.F.R. 778.208, 778.217;  Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03(A) (incorporating FLSA standards).   20.  The signing bonus was earned over a one-year period measured from Plaintiff and  the Putative Class’ hire date. The bonus was not provided to Plaintiff and the Putative Class free- and-clear until after the expiration of the one-year period. Thus, the signing bonus had to be  included in determining Plaintiff and the Putative Class’ regular rate for purposes of determining  overtime during the entire one-year period.   21.  Defendant unlawfully excluded the signing bonus in determining Plaintiff and the  Putative Class’ “regular rates” for purposes of overtime compensation.  Defendant thereby  miscalculated and underpaid the overtime compensation it paid to hourly employees, including  5  Plaintiff and the Putative Class who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and the  members of the Ohio Class.  22.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    23.  Plaintiff brings this case as an FLSA “collective action” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), which provides that “[a]n action to recover the liability” prescribed by the FLSA “may be  maintained against any employer … by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or  themselves and other employees similarly situated.”   24.  The Putative Class members who are “similarly situated” to Plaintiff with respect  to Defendant’s FLSA violations consist of:  All present and former EMTs, Paramedics, Field Training Officers,  and Wheelchair Car Drivers employed by Defendant during the  three-year period preceding the commencement of this action to the  present who received a signing bonus, and who worked more than  forty hours in one or more workweeks during the one-year period  following the employee’s hire date.   25.  Such persons are “similarly situated” with respect to Defendant’s FLSA violations  in that all were hourly employees of Defendant, all were subjected to and injured by Defendant’s  unlawful practice of excluding signing bonuses from the calculation of employees’ “regular rates”  for overtime compensation, and all have the same claims against Defendant for unpaid wages and  overtime compensation as well as for liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.   26.  Conditional certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) is proper and necessary so that such persons may be sent a Court-authorized notice  informing them of the pendency of this action and giving them the opportunity to “opt in.”  6   27.  Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of similarly-situated persons but avers,  upon information and belief, that they consist of thousands of people.  Such people are readily  identifiable through the payroll records Defendant has maintained, and was required to maintain,  pursuant to the FLSA and Ohio law.  29 U.S.C. § 211(c) & 29 C.F.R. § 215.2; Ohio Const. art. II,  § 34a.  28.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   29.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf  of himself and other members of a class of persons who assert claims under the laws of the State  of Ohio (the “Ohio Class”), defined as:  All present and former EMTs, Paramedics, Field Training Officers,  and Wheelchair Car Drivers employed by Defendant during the two- year period preceding the commencement of this action to the  present who received a signing bonus, and who worked more than  forty hours in one or more workweeks during the one-year period  following the employee’s hire date.   30.  The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.   Plaintiff cannot yet state the exact number of class members but aver, upon information and belief,  that they consist of thousands of people.  The number of class members as well as their identities  are ascertainable from the payroll records Defendant has maintained, and was required to maintain,  pursuant to the FLSA and Ohio law.  29 U.S.C. § 211(c) & 29 C.F.R. § 215.2; Ohio Const. art. II,  § 34a.   31.  There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not  limited to:  7  a) Whether Defendant miscalculated the overtime compensation it  paid to Plaintiff and other class members by excluding the signing  bonus from the calculation of their “regular rates” for purposes of  overtime compensation.  b) Whether Plaintiff and other class members would have received  additional overtime compensation if the signing bonus, had properly  been included in their “regular rates” of pay, and, if so, in what  amount.   32.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Ohio Class.   Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same uniform course of conduct by Defendant, and are based on  the same legal theories, as the claims of other class members.   33.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class.   Plaintiff’s interests are not antagonistic to, but rather are in unison with, the interests of other class  members.  Plaintiff’s counsel have broad experience in handling class action litigation, including  wage-and-hour litigation, and are fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio Class in this  case.   34.  The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Class predominate over  any questions affecting only individual members.  The primary questions that will determine  Defendant’s liability to the class, listed above, are common to the class as a whole, and  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.   35.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Requiring class members to pursue their claims individually  would entail a host of separate suits, with concomitant duplication of costs, attorneys’ fees, and  demands on court resources.  Many class members’ claims are sufficiently small that they would  be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, and risk of pursuing their claims individually.   8  Certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will enable the issues to  be adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.   36.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   37.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the FLSA’s overtime provisions on behalf  of himself and the Putative Class members who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   Plaintiff’s written consent to becoming a party to this action pursuant to § 216(b) is attached to  this Complaint.      38.  The FLSA requires that hourly and other non-exempt employees receive overtime  compensation of “not less than one and one-half times” the employees’ “regular rate.”  29 U.S.C.  § 207(a)(1).   39.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class members should have been paid overtime  compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their “regular rate” for all hours worked in  excess of forty hours per workweek.   40.  Defendant miscalculated and underpaid the overtime compensation it paid to  Plaintiff and the Putative Class members by excluding the signing bonus from the calculation of  their “regular rates.”  The signing bonus was non-discretionary and promised to Plaintiff and the  Potential Opt-Ins as part of their compensation.   41.  By engaging in that practice, Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and regulations  thereunder that have the force and effect of law.   42.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Putative Class  members were injured in that they did not receive overtime compensation due to them pursuant to  9  the FLSA.  29 U.S.C. § 216(b) entitles them to an award of “unpaid overtime compensation” as  well as “an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”  Section 216(b) further provides that  “[t]he court … shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a  reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.”  43.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    44.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the Ohio overtime compensation statute,  Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03, on behalf of himself and the Putative Class members who worked  for Defendant in Ohio and who may join this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and all members  of the Ohio Class for which certification is sought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.   45.  At all times relevant, Defendant was an employer covered by the Ohio overtime  compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03.   46.  Defendant violated the Ohio overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann.  § 4111.03, by excluding the signing bonus from the calculation of employees’ regular rates for  purposes of overtime computing compensation. The signing bonus was non-discretionary and  promised to Plaintiff and the members of the Ohio Class as part of their compensation.   47.  Defendant’s violations of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03 injured Plaintiff and the  Putative Class members who worked for Defendant in Ohio, and the Ohio Class members in that  they did not receive overtime compensation due to them pursuant to that statute.   48.  Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.10(A) provides that Defendant, having violated §  4111.03, is “liable to the employee[s] affected for the full amount of the overtime wage rate, less  10  any amount actually paid to the employee[s] by the employer, and for costs and reasonable  attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court.”   Defendant’s Status As an “Employer”  