(Fair Labor Standards Act Violations)  Case: 1:19-cv-01025-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/03/19 Page: 8 of 11  PAGEID #: 8  (Violations of Ohio Revised Code 4111.03 and Article II, § 34A of the Ohio Constitution)    14.  Defendant operates call centers throughout the United States.      15.  Defendant also employs call center/customer care representatives who work  remotely and perform the same tasks as the call center/customer care representatives who work in  the call centers.     16.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at their Springdale, Ohio call center from  about December 3, 2018 through about October 29, 2019.      17.  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were employed as call  center/customer care representatives or performed similar tasks as call center/ customer care  representatives.   18.  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees are non-exempt employees under  the FLSA.   19.  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees are paid an hourly wage.  Case: 1:19-cv-01025-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/03/19 Page: 3 of 11  PAGEID #: 3  (Failure to Pay For Time Spent Starting and Logging Into   Computer Systems, Applications, and Phone System)   20.  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 and logging  into Defendant’s computer systems, numerous software applications, and phone system.   21.  Defendant arbitrarily failed to count this work performed by Plaintiff and other  similarly-situated employees as “hours worked.”   22.  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees performed this unpaid work every  workday, and it constituted a part of their fixed and regular working time.   23.  This unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees  was practically ascertainable to Defendant.   24.  There is no practical administrative difficulty of recording this unpaid work of  Plaintiff’s and other similarly-situated employees.  It could be precisely recorded for payroll  purposes simply by allowing them to clock in and be paid before they brought up Defendant’s  computer systems, applications, and phone system.   25.  This unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees  constituted a part of their principal activities, was required by Defendant, and was performed for  Defendant’s benefit.     26.  Moreover, this unpaid work is an integral and indispensable part of other principle  activities performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees.  They cannot perform  their work without bringing up Defendant’s computer systems, applications, and phone system.  (Failure to Pay for Time Spent on Post-Shift Calls, Shutting Down Computer Systems,  Applications, and Phone System)   27.  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were required by Defendant to  Case: 1:19-cv-01025-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/03/19 Page: 4 of 11  PAGEID #: 4 perform unpaid work after their shift ended each day including but not limited to shutting down  and logging out of Defendant’s computer systems, numerous software applications, and phone  system.   28.  Defendant arbitrarily failed to count this work performed by Plaintiff and other  similarly-situated employees as “hours worked.”   29.  Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees performed this unpaid work every  workday, and it constituted a part of their fixed and regular working time.   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 out after shutting down Defendant’s computer systems,  applications, and phone system and before and after other meetings and work time.   32.  This unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees  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.     (Failure to Pay for Time Spent working but not logged into a fundraising campaign)   34.  Defendant utilized a timekeeping system such that Plaintiff and similarly situated  employees are not paid for all hours worked.       35.  Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are not compensated for the time spent  not logged into call programs or any other time spent working to log in or out of the computer  Case: 1:19-cv-01025-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/03/19 Page: 5 of 11  PAGEID #: 5 systems, applications, and phone system.     (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  by Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees before clocking in each day.  39.  Plaintiff brings Count One of this action on his 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.   40.  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 is herself a  member, is composed of and defined as follows:  All former and current call center/customer care representatives or  persons with jobs performing substantially identical functions  and/or duties to call center/customer care representatives employed  by Humana Pharmacy, Inc. during the statutory period covered by  this Complaint.     41.  Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact size of the potential class, but upon  information and belief, avers that it consists of more than 100 persons.   42.  This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  Case: 1:19-cv-01025-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/03/19 Page: 6 of 11  PAGEID #: 6 216(b) as to claims for unpaid 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 is acting on behalf of their interests as well as her  own in bringing this action.   43.  These similarly-situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily  identifiable through Defendant’s payroll records.  These individuals may readily be 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 overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees  and costs under the FLSA.  44.  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 call center/customer care representatives or  persons with jobs performing substantially identical functions  and/or duties to call center/customer care representatives employed  by Humana Pharmacy, Inc. in the State of Ohio during the statutory  period covered by this Complaint.     45.  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, avers that it consists of at least 100 persons.   46.  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 care/call center representatives for hours worked in  excess of 40 each workweek; and  Case: 1:19-cv-01025-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/03/19 Page: 7 of 11  PAGEID #: 7 (b) what amount of monetary relief will compensate Plaintiff and  other members of the Class for Defendant’s violation of R.C.  4111.03 and 4111.10 and Article II, § 34A of the Ohio  Constitution.   47.  The claims of the named Plaintiff is typical of the claims of other members of the  Ohio Class.  Named Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same uniform course of conduct by  Defendant and are based on the same legal theories as the claims of the other Ohio Class members.   48.  The named Plaintiff will fairly and 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  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 each day violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207,  58.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.  Case: 1:19-cv-01025-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/03/19 Page: 9 of 11  PAGEID #: 9  59.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated  employees for work performed before clocking in each day violated the OMFWSA, R.C. 4111.03  and Article II, § 34A of the Ohio Constitution.   60.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated  employees for work performed after their shift ended violated the OMFWSA, R.C. 4111.03 and  Article II, § 34A of the Ohio Constitution.    61.  Defendant’s practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated  employees for work performed when not logged into Defendant’s computer systems, applications,  and phone system violated the OMFWSA, R.C. 4111.03 and Article II, § 34A of the Ohio  Constitution.    62.  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 OMFWSA, R.C. 4111.03 and  Article II, § 34A of the Ohio Constitution    63.  By failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees’ overtime  compensation, Defendant willfully, knowingly and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the  OMFWSA, R.C. 4111.03 and Article II, § 34A of the Ohio Constitution.   64.  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 OMFWSA and the Ohio Constitution. 