10.  At times during the three year period preceding the filling of this complaint,  the Named Plaintiff and the putative class members were classified by Defendant as exempt  from overtime wages.   11.  At times during the three year period preceding the filling of this complaint,  the Named Plaintiff and the putative class members were paid a salary.   12.  At times during the three year period preceding the filling of this complaint,  the Named Plaintiff and the putative class members were not paid an overtime premium for  hours worked in excess of forty per week.   13.  Throughout the three year period preceding the filing of this complaint, the  job duties performed by the Named Plaintiff and putative class members were those of  FLSA non- exempt employees.   14.  TSAs performed work similar to help desk workers, offering technical  support and troubleshooting to Cerner’s clients.   15.  TSAs did not create or install the software that customers used.  They did not  write code or fix code. Rather, TSAs assisted with remote troubleshooting and configuring  software after it was installed.   16.  TSAs responded to service request tickets (“SRs”) from clients or other  Cerner employees.  If the SR was simple enough, the TSA would work to resolve the ticket.  However, if the SR required a review of the code, it was sent to a different individual (e.g.,  software engineer) with greater technical expertise.  4   17.  The Named Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of  other similarly-situated employees, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Collective Class of  similarly- situated employees is defined as:  All persons who were employed by Cerner as TSAs in  SolutionWorks and/or AMS1, and who were not compensated  at a rate of one and one half times their regular rate of pay for  hours worked over forty (40) a week at any time from three  years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit.    18.  The Named Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of  all other similarly-situated employees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Missouri  Overtime Wage Class is defined as:  All persons who were employed by Cerner as TSAs in  SolutionWorks and/or AMS2, and who were not compensated at  a rate of one and one half times their regular rate of pay for  hours worked over forty (40) a week at any time from two years  prior to the commencement of this lawsuit.   19.  The Named Plaintiff brings the Second Claim for Relief on her own behalf  and on behalf of the Missouri Overtime Wage Class, as defined in paragraph 23, supra,  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b).   20.  The persons in the Missouri Overtime Wage Class above are so numerous that  joinder of all members is impracticable. Although the precise number of such persons is  unknown, upon information and belief, Defendant has employed more than a hundred people  who satisfy the definition of the class.   21.  Common factual and legal questions involving the Wage Class predominate  1  The class definition is intended to cover individuals who performed the same primary duty as TSAs, but  whose job titles, role descriptions, or organization names may have changed during the statutory period.  2  The class definition is intended to cover individuals who performed the same primary duty as TSAs, but  whose job titles, role descriptions, or organization names may have changed during the statutory period.  5  over any questions solely affecting individual members of the class, including but not limited  to:  (a)  Whether TSAs are exempt from overtime compensation  under Missouri law;  (b)  Whether Cerner maintained a common practice of unlawfully  failing to pay overtime compensation to the Named Plaintiff and  members of the putative class;  (c)  Whether the Named Plaintiff and members of the putative class  performed work for Cerner in excess of forty hours per work week;  (d)  The nature and amount of compensable work performed by the  Named Plaintiff and members of the putative class;  (e)  Whether Cerner employed the Named Plaintiff and members  of the putative class within the meaning of Missouri law; and  (f)  The proper measure of damages sustained by the Named Plaintiff  and members of the putative class.   22.  The Named Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Missouri Overtime  Wage Class. The Named Plaintiff, like other members of the Missouri Overtime Wage Class,  was subjected to Cerner’s illegal pay policy of refusing to pay overtime wages, in violation  of Missouri law.   23.  The Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  Missouri Overtime Wage Class and has retained counsel experienced in complex wage and  hour litigation.   24.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where  individual plaintiffs lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute separate lawsuits in  federal court against a large and wealthy corporate defendant, particularly those with  relatively small claims.  6   25.  Class certification of the Second Claim for Relief is appropriate under Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because questions of law and fact common to the Missouri Overtime Wage  Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Missouri  Overtime Wage Class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for  the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. Defendant’s common and uniform  policies and practices denied the Missouri Overtime Wage Class the wages for work  performed to which they are entitled. The damages suffered by the individual Missouri  Overtime Wage Class members are small compared to the expense and burden of individual  prosecution of this litigation. In addition, class certification is superior because it will  obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments  about Defendant’s pay practices.   26.  The Named Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the Missouri  Overtime Wage Class to the extent required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  27.  The Named Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Collective Class, re- alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.   28.  Cerner is an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.  § 203(s).   29.  Cerner is an employer within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203(d).   30.  The Named Plaintiff and the members of the Collective Class were  employees of Cerner within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203(e).   31.  The FLSA requires each covered employer to compensate all non-exempt  employees at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for work  7  performed in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.   32.  The Named Plaintiff and members of the Collective Class are not and were  not exempt from overtime pay requirements under the FLSA.   33.  At times during the applicable statute of limitations, the Named Plaintiff and  members of the Collective Class performed worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week  without receiving overtime compensation.   34.  Specifically, the Named Plaintiff and the class members were expected to  work more than 40 hours per week.   35.  These practices violate the FLSA, including, but not limited to, 29 U.S.C. § 207.  Because of these violations, the Named Plaintiff and members of the Collective Class have  suffered a wage loss.   36.  Cerner knew or showed reckless disregard for the fact that it failed to pay the  Named Plaintiff and members of the Collective Class overtime compensation in violation of  the FLSA.  37.  The Named Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Missouri Overtime  Wage Class, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding  paragraphs.   38.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged, violates Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.505.   39.  At all relevant times, Cerner has been and continues to be an “employer”  within the meaning of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500(4).  8   40.  At all relevant times, the Named Plaintiff and the putative Missouri Overtime  Wage Class members were Cerner employees within the meaning of Mo. Rev. Stat. §  290.500(3).   41.  Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.505 requires an employer to pay overtime compensation  to all non-exempt employees.   42.  The Named Plaintiff and members of the Missouri Overtime Wage Class are  not and were not exempt from overtime pay requirements under Missouri law.   43.  At times during the applicable statute of limitations, Cerner had a policy and  practice of failing and refusing to pay overtime wages to the Named Plaintiff and members  of the putative Missouri Overtime Wage Class for their hours worked in excess of forty  hours per workweek.   44.  As a result of Cerner’s willful failure to pay overtime wages earned and due  to the Named Plaintiff and members of the putative Missouri Overtime Wage Class,  Defendants have violated and continue to violate Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500.  8.  Cerner supplies health care information technology solutions, services,  3  devices, and hardware to hospitals and clinics throughout the United States and abroad.   9.  At times during the three year period preceding the filing of this complaint,  the Named Plaintiff and putative class members are or were employed by Defendant as  TSAs.   FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES   IN VIOLATION OF MISSOURI LAW   FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME  COMPENSATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FLSA  