24.  Purple Land Management operates throughout the United States, including  Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. To complete its business objectives, Purple Land Management  hires personnel, such as Prinkey, to perform landman services.   25.  Purple Land Management’s Landmen are required to assist Purple Land Management’s  customers in securing title, signing leases, communicating with attorneys regarding land acquisitions,  and serving as the liaison between land owners and Purple Land Management’s clients.    26.  Many of these individuals worked for Purple Land Management as “independent  contractors” on a day-rate basis and make up the proposed Putative Class. While exact job titles and  job duties may differ,1 these employees are subjected to the same or similar illegal pay practices for  similar work.    27.  For example, Prinkey worked exclusively for Purple Land Management from  approximately May 2017 to November 2019 as a Landman. Throughout her employment with Purple  Land Management, she was classified as an independent contractor and paid on a day-rate basis.   Prinkey was never paid on a salary basis.  She never received any guaranteed weekly compensation  from Purple Land Management irrespective of days worked (i.e., the only compensation she received  was the day-rate for each day that she actually worked).   28.  Prinkey worked for Purple Land Management throughout the states of Pennsylvania,  Ohio, and West Virginia. For example, Prinkey reviewed land records on behalf of Purple Land  Management in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.   30.  The day to day activities of the Putative Class Members were conducted within  designated parameters defined by Purple Land Management.     31.  Prinkey and the Putative Class Members worked well in excess of 40 hours each week  while employed by Purple Land Management.   32.  The work Prinkey and the Putative Class Members performed was an essential part of  Purple Land Management’s core business.   33.  During Prinkey’s employment with Purple Land Management while she was classified  as an independent contractor, Purple Land Management exercised control over all aspects of her job.  Purple Land Management did not require any substantial investment by Prinkey for her to perform  the work required of her.    34.  Prinkey was not required to possess any unique or specialized skillset (other than that  maintained by all other Landmen) to perform her job duties.    35.  Purple Land Management determined Prinkey’s opportunity for profit and loss.    36.  Indeed, Purple Land Management controlled all the significant or meaningful aspects  of the job duties performed by Prinkey.   37.  Purple Land Management ordered the hours and locations Prinkey worked, the  equipment and forms she used, and the rates of pay she received.   38.  Purple Land Management controlled all aspects of Prinkey’s job activities by enforcing  mandatory compliance with Purple Land Management’s policies and procedures.   39.  No real investment was required of Prinkey to perform her job. More often than not,  Prinkey utilized equipment provided by Purple Land Management to perform her job duties.    40.  Purple Land Management made the large capital investments in buildings, tools, and  supplies in the business in which Prinkey worked.   42.  Prinkey was economically dependent on Purple Land Management during her  employment.   43.  Purple Land Management set Prinkey’s rates of pay, her work schedule, and prohibited  her from working other jobs for other companies while she was working on jobs for Purple Land  Management.   44.  Purple Land Management directly determined Prinkey’s opportunity for profit and loss.  Prinkey’s earning opportunity was based on the number of days Purple Land Management scheduled  her to work and the assignments she was provided.   45.  Very little skill, training, or initiative was required of Prinkey to perform her job duties.   46.  Indeed, the daily and weekly activities of the Putative Class Members were routine and  largely governed by standardized plans, procedures, and checklists created by Purple Land  Management.    47.  Virtually every job function was pre-determined by Purple Land Management,  including the tools used, the data to research and compile, the work schedule, and related work duties.    48.  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 technical in nature, requiring little to no official training, much less a college education or  other advanced degree.   49.  The Putative Class Members did not have any supervisory or management duties.   50.  For the purposes of their overtime claims, the Putative Class Members performed  substantially similar job duties related to servicing Purple Land Management’s core business.    52.  Prinkey worked exclusively for Purple Land Management from approximately May  2017 to November 2019 as an independent contractor.   53.  Prinkey typically worked 12 hours per day during a five-day workweek for Purple Land  Management.   54.  Prinkey was not employed by Purple Land Management on a project-by-project basis.   55.  In fact, while Prinkey was classified as an independent contractor, she was regularly on  call for Purple Land Management and was expected to drop everything and work whenever needed.   56.  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.   57.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were subjected to the same illegal pay practice  for similar work.    58.  Specifically, Purple Land Management paid Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members a  day rate, regardless of the number of hours that they worked each day (or in a workweek).   59.  Purple Land Management did not pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members  overtime pay for hours that they worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek.    60.  Purple Land Management did not guarantee Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members  a minimum salary per week.   61.  Purple Land Management paid Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members a day rate  equal to less than $455.   63.  Purple Land Management’s policy of failing to pay its independent contractors,  including Prinkey, overtime violates the FLSA because these workers are, for all purposes, employees  performing non-exempt job duties.   64.  Because Prinkey (and Purple Land Management’s other independent contractors) were  misclassified as independent contractors by Purple Land Management, she and the Putative Class  Members should receive overtime for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in each  workweek.   65.  Purple Land Management’s day-rate system violates state and federal law because  Prinkey and the other Landmen did not receive any pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours each  week.  VI.  69.  Purple Land Management is subject to the overtime requirements of the PMWA  because Purple Land Management is an employer under 43 P.S. § 333.103(g).   70.  During all relevant times, Prinkey and the PMWA Class were covered employees  entitled to the above-described PMWA’s protections.  See 43 P.S. § 333.103(h).   71.  Purple Land Management’s compensation scheme that is applicable to Prinkey and the  PMWA Class failed to comply with either 43 P.S. § 333.104(c) or 34 Pa. Code § 231.43(b).   72.  At all relevant times, Purple Land Management was subject to the requirements of the  78.  Plaintiff brings this claim under the Ohio Wage Act as a Rule 23 class action.   79.  The conduct alleged violates the Ohio Wage Act (O.R.C. §§4111).   80.  At all relevant times, Defendants were and are subject to the requirements of the Ohio  Wage Act.   81.  The Ohio Wage Act requires employers like Defendant to pay employees at one and  one-half (1.5) times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in any one  week. Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are entitled to overtime pay under the Ohio Wage  Acts.      82.  Defendants had a policy and practice of misclassifying Plaintiff and each member of  the Ohio Wage Act class as independent contractors and failing to pay these workers overtime for  hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.    83.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members seek unpaid overtime in amount equal to 1.5  times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, prejudgment  interest, all available penalty wages, and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just  and proper.  84.  Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs and alleges that the illegal pay practices  Defendant imposed on Plaintiff were likewise imposed on the Putative Class Members.   85.  Numerous individuals were victimized by this pattern, practice, and policy which is in  willful violation of the FLSA, Ohio Wage Acts, and PMWA.    87.  Based on her experiences and tenure with Defendant, Plaintiff is aware that  Defendant’s illegal practices were imposed on the Putative Class Members.   88.  The Putative Class Members were all improperly classified as independent contractors  and not afforded the overtime compensation when they worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.   89.  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 Putative Class Members.   90.  Plaintiff’s experiences are therefore typical of the experiences of the Putative Class  Members.   91.  The specific job titles or precise job locations of the Putative Class Members do not  prevent class or collective treatment.     92.  Plaintiff has no interest contrary to, or in conflict with, the Putative Class Members.  Like each Putative Class Member, Plaintiff has an interest in obtaining the unpaid overtime wages  owed to them under state and/or federal law.   93.  A class and collective action, such as the instant one, is superior to other available  means for fair and efficient adjudication of the lawsuit.    94.  Absent this action, many Putative Class Members likely will not obtain redress of their  injuries and Defendant will reap the unjust benefits of violating the FLSA and applicable state labor  laws.   95.  Furthermore, even if some of the Putative Class Members could afford individual  litigation against Defendant, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.    97.  The questions of law and fact common to the Putative Class Members predominate  over any questions affecting solely the individual members. Among the common questions of law and  fact are:  a.  Whether Defendant employed the Putative Class Members within the meaning  of the applicable state and federal statutes, including the FLSA, Ohio Wage  Acts, and PMWA;  b.  Whether the Putative Class Members were improperly misclassified as  independent contractors;  c.  Whether Defendant’s decision to classify the Putative Class Members as  independent contractors was made in good faith;   d.  Whether Defendant’s decision to not pay time and a half for overtime to the  Putative Class Members was made in good faith;   e.  Whether Defendant’s violation of the FLSA, Ohio Wage Acts, and PMWA  was willful; and   f.  Whether Defendant’s illegal pay practices were applied uniformly across the  nation to all Putative Class Members.   98.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Putative Class Members. Plaintiff and  the Putative Class Members sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s illegal and uniform  employment policy.   