18.  To provide their services, HWS employed (and continues to employ) numerous waste  disposal drivers—including Plaintiff Uribe and the individuals that make up the putative or potential  class.    19.  While exact job titles may differ, these employees were subjected to the same or similar  illegal pay practices for similar work.   20.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ primary job duties consisted of driving waste  disposal trucks, hauling waste, recycling, and other refuse to various landfill or disposal sites  throughout the Greater Houston areas.   21.  Plaintiff Uribe was employed by HWS as a waste disposal driver from approximately  March 2016 until October 2017.    22.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are non-exempt employees paid a piece- rate—that is, they were paid for each haul completed.   23.  Specifically, Plaintiff Uribe received different dollar amounts for each haul, depending  on the type of haul, but did not receive overtime compensation at the required rate of time-and-one- half for all hours worked over forty (40) each workweek.   24.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not) include  managerial responsibilities or the exercise of independent discretion or judgment.    25.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not have the authority or discretion to  vary or change their proscribed job duties and/or routes.   26.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not have the authority to bind or  represent the company financially.   28.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not (and currently are not) responsible  for making decisions regarding salary, pay, or other administrative matters.   29.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not) concern  work directly related to the management or general business operation s of HWS and/or its customers.   30.  Rather, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were blue-collar waste disposal  drivers.   31.  Plaintiff Uribe worked an average of thirteen (13) to fifteen (15) hours per day, and six  (6) to seven (7) days per week, but did not receive overtime compensation at the required rate of time- and-one-half for all hours worked over forty (40) each week.   32.  HWS denied Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members overtime pay as a result of a  widely applicable, illegal pay practice. Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked in  excess of forty (40) hours per week but never received overtime compensation.    33.  HWS applied this pay practice despite clear and controlling law that states that the  manual and routine duties which were performed by Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members  consisted of non-exempt work.    34.  The FLSA mandates that overtime be paid a one and one-half times an employee’s  regular rate of pay.  35  Accordingly, HWS’ pay policies and practices violated (and continue to violate) the  38.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   39.  The FLSA Collective is defined as:  56.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   57.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this is a collective action filed on behalf of HWS’s  employees who are (or were) similarly situated to Plaintiff with regard to the work they performed and  the manner in which they were paid.   58.  Other similarly situated employees of HWS have been victimized by HWS’s patterns,  practices, and policies, which are in willful violation of the FLSA.   60.  HWS’s failure to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members overtime compensation  at the rates required by the FLSA, results from generally applicable policies and practices of HWS,  and does not depend on the personal circumstances of Plaintiff or the Putative Class Members.    61.  Thus, Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the experiences of the Putative Class  Members.   62.  The specific job titles or precise job requirements of the various Putative Class  Members does not prevent collective treatment.    63.  All of the Putative Class Members—regardless of their specific job titles, precise job  requirements, rates of pay, or job locations—are entitled to be properly compensated their overtime  wages for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) each week.    64.  Although the issues of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction  from the common nucleus of liability facts.     65.  Absent a collective action, many members of the proposed FLSA collective likely will  not obtain redress of their injuries and HWS will retain the proceeds of its violations.   66.  Moreover, individual litigation would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.  Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among the claims  of the individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.   67.  Accordingly, the FLSA collective of similarly situated plaintiffs should be certified as  defined as in Paragraph 39 and notice should be promptly sent.   VI.  A.  FLSA COVERAGE  