17.  Rice Energy is an oil and natural gas company operating primarily in Pennsylvania  and Ohio in the Marcellus, Utica, and Upper Devonian Shales and employs oilfield personnel to  carry out its work.   18.  Many of these individuals worked for Rice Energy performing the same or  substantially similar job duties as Plaintiff who are/were misclassified by Rice Energy as so-called  independent contractors in connection with Rice Energy’s oilfield operations. While exact job titles  and job duties may differ, these employees are subjected to the same or similar illegal pay practices  for similar work. Specifically, Rice Energy classified the Putative Class Members as independent  contractors and paid them a flat sum for each day worked, regardless of the number of hours that  they worked that day (or in that workweek) and failed to provide them with overtime pay for hours  that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.   19.  For example, Plaintiff has worked exclusively for Rice Energy since approximately  October 2015 as an oilfield contractor/flowback operator. Throughout his employment with Rice  Energy, he was classified as an independent contractor and paid on a day-rate basis.     21.  The work Plaintiff performed was an essential party of Rice Energy’s core business.   22.  During Plaintiff’s employment with Rice Energy while he was classified as an  independent contractor, Rice Energy and/or the company it contracted with exercised control over  all aspects of his job. Rice Energy did not require any substantial investment by Plaintiff in order for  him to perform the work required of him. Rice Energy determined Plaintiff’s opportunity for profit  and loss.  Plaintiff was not required to possess any unique or specialized skillset (other than that  maintained by all other individuals working in his same job position) to perform his job duties.   Plaintiff has worked exclusively for Rice Energy as an independent contractor since approximately  October 2015.   23.  Indeed, Rice Energy and/or the company it contracted with controlled all of the  significant or meaningful aspects of the job duties performed by Plaintiff.   24.  Rice Energy ordered the hours and locations Plaintiff worked, tools used, and rates  of pay received.   25.  Even though Plaintiff often worked away from Rice Energy’s offices without the  presence of a direct Rice Energy supervisor, Rice Energy still controlled all aspects of Plaintiff’s job  activities by enforcing mandatory compliance with Rice Energy’s and/or its client’s policies and  procedures.   27.  Plaintiff did not incur operating expenses like rent, payroll, marketing, and insurance.   28.  Plaintiff was economically dependent on Rice Energy during his employment.   29.  Rice Energy set Plaintiff’s rates of pay, his work schedule, and prohibited him from  working other jobs for other companies while he was working on jobs for Rice Energy.   30.  Rice Energy directly determined Plaintiff’s opportunity for profit and loss.  Plaintiff’s  earning opportunity was based on the number of days Rice Energy scheduled him to work.   31.  Very little skill, training, or initiative was required of Plaintiff to perform his job  duties.   32.  Indeed, the daily and weekly activities of the Putative Class Members were routine  and largely governed by standardized plans, procedures, and checklists created by Rice Energy  and/or its clients. Virtually every job function was pre-determined by Rice Energy and/or its clients,  including the tools to use at a job site, the data to compile, the schedule of work, and related work  duties. The Putative Class Members were prohibited from varying their job duties outside of the pre- determined parameters. Moreover, the job functions of the Putative Class Members were primarily  manual labor/technical in nature, requiring little to no official training, much less a college education  or other advanced degree. The Putative Class Members did not have any supervisory or  management duties.  Finally, for the purposes of an FLSA overtime claim, the Putative Class  Members performed substantially similar job duties related to servicing oil and gas operations in the  field.    34.  Plaintiff has worked exclusively for Rice Energy since approximately October 2015  as an independent contractor.  Plaintiff was not employed by Rice Energy on a project-by-project  basis.  In fact, while Plaintiff was classified as an independent contractor, he was regularly on call for  Rice Energy and/or its clients and was expected to drop everything and work whenever needed.   35.  All of the Putative Class Members perform the same or similar job duties and are  subjected to the same or similar policies and procedures which dictate the day-to-day activities  performed by each person.   36.  The Putative Class Members also worked similar hours and were denied overtime as  a result of the same illegal pay practice. The Putative Class Members all worked in excess of 40  hours each week and were often scheduled for 12 hour shifts for weeks at a time. Instead of paying  them overtime, Rice Energy paid the Putative Class Members a day-rate. Rice Energy denied the  Putative Class Members overtime for any and all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single  workweek.    37.  Rice Energy’s policy of failing to pay its independent contractors, including Plaintiff,  overtime violates the FLSA, the PMWA, and the Ohio Wage Laws because these workers are, for all  purposes, employees performing non-exempt job duties.   38.  It is undisputed that the Putative Class Members are maintaining and working with  oilfield machinery, performing manual labor, and working long hours out in the field.   39.  Because Plaintiff (and Rice Energy’s other independent contractors who were paid a  day-rate) was misclassified as an independent contractor by Rice Energy, he should receive overtime  for all hours that he worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek.   64.  Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs and alleges that the illegal pay practices  Defendant imposed on Plaintiff were likewise imposed on the members of the Classes.   65.  Numerous individuals were victimized by this pattern, practice, and policy which is  in willful violation of the FLSA, and the state wage laws of Pennsylvania and Ohio.    66.  Numerous other individuals who worked with Plaintiff indicated they were  improperly classified as independent contractors, paid in the same manner, performed similar work,  and were not properly compensated for all hours worked as required by state and federal wage laws.    67.  Based on his experiences and tenure with Defendant, Plaintiff is aware that  Defendant’s illegal practices were imposed on the members of the Classes.     68.  The members of the Classes were all improperly classified as independent  contractors and not afforded the overtime compensation when they worked in excess of 40 hours  per week.   69.  Defendant’s failure to pay wages and overtime compensation at the rates required by  state and/or federal law result from generally applicable, systematic policies, and practices which are  not dependent on the personal circumstances of the members of the Classes.    70.  Plaintiff’s experiences are therefore typical of the experiences of the members of the  Classes.   71.  The specific job titles or precise job locations of the various members of the Classes  do not prevent class or collective treatment.     73.  A class and collective action, such as the instant one, is superior to other available  means for fair and efficient adjudication of the lawsuit.    74.  Absent this Action, many members of the Classes likely will not obtain redress of  their injuries and Defendant will reap the unjust benefits of violating the FLSA and applicable state  labor laws.   75.  Furthermore, even if some of the members of the Classes could afford individual  litigation against Defendant, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.   76.  Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity  among the claims of individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.   78.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes. Plaintiff and  the members of the Classes sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s illegal and uniform  employment policy.    79.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its ability to go forward as a collective or class action.   80.  Although the issue of damages may be somewhat individual in character, there is no  detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts. Therefore, this issue does not preclude  collective and class action treatment.  X. 