(Fair Labor Standards Act Violations)   (Ohio Wage Act Violations)   13.  Defendant is in the business of providing security monitoring and other related  services to customers throughout the United States.   14.  Defendant operates customer service / dispatch call centers in Ohio, among other  places.    3   15.  At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff worked as a Customer Service  Representative and/or Dispatcher in Defendant’s Uniontown, Ohio call center.   16.  Other similarly situated employees were employed by Defendant as Customer  Service Representatives, Customer Care Representatives and Dispatchers.     17.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated Customer Service Representatives, Customer  Care Representatives and Dispatchers were classified by Defendant as non-exempt employees.   18.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees routinely worked forty (40) or more  hours per workweek.     19.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were paid on an hourly basis.     20.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees answered inbound telephone calls  from customers and responded to customer emails regarding customers’ alarms and other customer  service issues.  (Failure to Pay For Time Spent Starting and Log In and Out of Defendant’s   Computer Systems and Applications)   21.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were expressly directed not to clock  in prior to the start of their scheduled start times.  Defendant required, however, that Plaintiff and  other similarly situated employees be ready to take their first call promptly at their scheduled start  times.    22.  Thus, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were required by Defendant  to perform unpaid work before clocking in each day, including, but not limited to, starting, booting  up, and logging into Defendant’s computer systems and software applications.     23.  Similarly, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were required to clock  out precisely at the end of their scheduled shifts.  Defendant required, however, that Plaintiff and  other similarly situated employees log out of and shut down Defendant’s computer systems and  4  software applications at the end of their scheduled end times.     24.  Thus, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were required by Defendant  to perform unpaid work after clocking out each day, including, but not limited to, logging out of  and shutting down Defendant’s computer systems and software applications.     25.  By common policy and practice, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees  were required to have their computers booted up and have several applications running before the  start of their shifts so that they could take their first call at their scheduled start times.     26.  By common policy and practice, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees  were required to log out of and shut down their computers after the end of their shifts.     27.  Defendant arbitrarily failed to count this pre-shift and post-shift work performed by  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees as “hours worked.”   28.  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees performed this unpaid work every  workday, and it constituted a part of their fixed and regular working time.   29.  Plaintiff estimates that she spent approximately 10-15 minutes performing the  above-described pre-shift and post-shift work each day.     30.  This unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees  was practically ascertainable to Defendant.   31.  There was no practical administrative difficulty of recording this unpaid work of  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees.  It could have been precisely recorded for payroll  purposes simply by allowing them to clock in before they began booting up Defendant’s computer  systems and applications and clock out after the logged out of and shut down Defendant’s  computer systems and applications.   32.  This unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees  5  constituted a part of their principal activities, was required by Defendant, and was performed for  Defendant’s benefit.     33.  Moreover, this unpaid work was an integral and indispensable part of other  principle activities performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees.  Specifically,  they cannot perform their work without booting up and starting Defendant’s computer systems and  applications.  And, they are required to log out and shut down Defendant’s computer systems and  applications at the end of their workday.     34.  Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly- situated employees for booting up and logging into Defendant’s computer systems and  applications during which they performed work that managers and/or other agents and/or  representatives / dispatchers observed.   35.  Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly- situated employees for logging out of and shutting down Defendant’s computer systems and  applications during which they performed work that managers and/or other agents and/or  representatives observed.  (Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation)   36.  As a result of Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees not being paid for all  hours worked, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were not paid overtime  compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek.    37.  Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of  the FLSA.  (Failure to Keep Accurate Records)   38.  Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid work performed  6  by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees before clocking in each day.   39.  The amount of time Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees spent on their  required and unpaid work before clocking in and after clocking out amounted to approximately 10- 15 minutes when Defendant’s computer systems were working properly, or longer when  Defendant’s computer systems were slow or not working.  40.  Plaintiff brings Count One of the action on her own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who have been, are being, or will be  adversely affected by Defendant’s unlawful conduct.   41.  The class which Plaintiff seeks to represent and for whom Plaintiff seeks the right  to send “opt-in” notices for purposes of the collective action, and of which Plaintiff herself is a  member, is composed of and defined as:  All former and current Customer Service Representatives, Customer  Care Representatives and Dispatchers employed by Defendant  between April 3, 2015 and the present.   42.  Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential class, but upon  information and belief aver that it consists of more than three hundred people.    43.  This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) as to claims for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees  and costs under the FLSA.  In addition to Plaintiff, numerous current and former employees are  similarly situated with regard to their wages and claims for unpaid wages and damages.  Plaintiff  is representative of those other employees and are acting on behalf of their interests, as well as  their own, in bringing this action.   44.  These similarly-situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily  identifiable through Defendant’s business and payroll records.  These individuals may readily be  7  notified of this action, and allowed to opt in pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of  collectively adjudicating their claims for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated  damages, attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.  45.  Plaintiff brings Count Two of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3)  on behalf of herself and all other members of the class (the “Ohio Class”) defined as:  All former and current Customer Service Representatives, Customer  Care Representatives and Dispatchers employed by Defendant  between April 3, 2016 and the present.   46.  The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.   Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential Ohio Class, but upon  information and belief, aver that it consists of at least several hundred persons.   47.  There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class, including but not  limited to the following:   a) whether Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation to its  Customer Service Representatives, Customer Care  Representatives and Dispatchers for hours worked in excess of  40 each workweek; and  b) what amount of monetary relief will compensate Plaintiff and  other members of the class for Defendant’s violation of the  Ohio Wage Act.   48.  Named Plaintiff Bender will adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class.   Her interests are not antagonistic to, but rather are in unison with, the interests of the other Ohio  Class members.  The named Plaintiff’s counsel has broad experience in handling class action  wage-and-hour litigation, and is fully qualified to prosecute the claims of the Ohio Class in this  case.    49.  The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Class predominate over  8  any questions affecting only individual members.  The primary questions that will determine  Defendant’s liability to the Ohio Class, listed above, are common to the class as a whole, and  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.   50.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Requiring Ohio 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 Ohio Class members’ claims are sufficiently small  that they would be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, and risk of pursuing their claims  individually.  Certification of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will enable the issues to be  adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.  51.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.    52.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated  employees for work performed before clocking in and after clocking out each day violated the  57.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   58.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated  employees for work performed before clocking in and after clocking out each day violated the  Ohio Wage Act.   59.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated  employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for  all of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek violated the Ohio Wage Act.   60.  Defendant’s failure to keep records of all of the hours worked each workday and  the total hours worked each workweek by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees violated  the Ohio Wage Act.    61.  As a result of Defendant’s practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly- situated employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant  to the Ohio Wage Act. 