14.  Gustech relies on Satellite Technicians, such as Plaintiffs, to install and  repair DirecTV services and products in states such as North Carolina, South Carolina,  Texas, and Florida.    15.  Gustech maintains a website which describes its business as installing  satellite television in homes.   17.  Gustech Technicians perform core work that is necessary to Gustech’s  business, namely providing installations, upgrades, and support for DirecTV customers;  without the Technicians, Defendant would have no business.   18.  Gustech improperly misclassified Plaintiffs and Class Members as  independent contractors, when the economic reality of the position is that of an  employee, and Gustech retains the right of control, and, in fact, actually does control the  work of its Satellite Technicians.   19.  As a result of the misclassification of its Satellite Technicians, Gustech did  not pay them in accordance with the FLSA and state wage laws and otherwise forced the  Technicians unlawfully to bear certain costs of Gustech’s business by deducting such  amounts from their pay.   20.  Plaintiffs and Class Members qualify as employees under the FLSA, the  NCWHA, and the SCPWA, as further described below.   21.  The work performed by Plaintiffs and Class Members is an integral part of  Gustech’s business. Gustech is in the business of providing DirecTV satellite installation  and repair services. Plaintiffs and Class Members installed, upgraded, and provided  technical services for DirecTV satellite products to Gustech’s customers.   22.  Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ duties do not involve managerial work.  They follow the protocols provided to them by Gustech in performing their work, which  is basic installation and technical services.   23.  Plaintiffs and Class Members do not make any significant relative  investments in relation to their work with Gustech.    25.  Gustech requires Plaintiffs and Class Members who do not have prior  experience to undergo training lasting one to three weeks during which they work  alongside other Gustech technicians without pay.   26.  Plaintiffs and Class Members are not customarily engaged in an  independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.   27.  Plaintiffs and Class Members have little or no authority to refuse or  negotiate Gustech’s rules and policies; they must comply or risk deduction in hours  and/or termination.   28.  In addition to reserving the right to control the work performed by  Plaintiffs and Class Members, Gustech, in fact, exercises control over the method and  manner in which Plaintiffs and the Classes perform their labor for Gustech’s clients.   30.  Gustech requires Plaintiffs and Class Members to submit to a consumer  background report as part of the application process.   31.  Gustech controls Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ work assignments  through the Field Services Tech Passport (FSTP) application. Gustech assigns routes for  each technician and assigns jobs based on the Technician’s score. Work assignments are  easily monitored or changed by Gustech at any time for any reason.   32.  Gustech tracks Plaintiffs and Class Members with the phone tracking  application FSTP. Plaintiffs and Class Members are required to download the application  to their phones in order for Gustech to track their work and location throughout the day.   34.  Gustech monitors the information in FSTP throughout the day and calls  Technicians who are running behind the estimated schedule.   35.  Gustech requires Plaintiffs and Class Members to attend mandatory  meetings every two weeks to discuss current performance and ways to increase  productivity.   36.  Gustech’s Technicians are supervised closely by Gustech personnel.  Gustech evaluates and scores Plaintiffs and Class Members, which determines the  quantity and quality of jobs assigned to the Technician.   37.  Gustech assigns Plaintiffs and Class Members additional jobs installing  and repairing Dish Network equipment for Airtech Communications, LLC, which is  affiliated with Gustech.   38.  Gustech can unilaterally alter whether it classifies Plaintiffs and Class  Members as independent contractors or employees.  In approximately May or June 2017,  Gustech required its Technicians to sign documents stating that they would be classified  as employees.  Gustech, however, continued to classify the Technicians as independent  contractors.   40.  For return service calls, Gustech will issue a chargeback for any repair or  other return service needed within 90 days of an installation performed by the Satellite  Technician.   41.  Gustech deducts the cost of tools and equipment, such as cables, tie wraps,  tape, silicon, fittings, and barrels, from the Technician’s pay.   42.  Gustech Technicians are required to purchase the necessary tools and  equipment for the job. These required purchases are primarily for the benefit of Gustech’s  business and can cost Technicians hundreds of dollars. For example, Technicians are  required to purchase an aim-meter to work for Gustech.   43.  Plaintiffs and Class Members are paid on a per project or job basis with a  rate schedule set by Gustech based on the service provided.   44.  Plaintiffs are not notified when there has been a repeat service call that  will result in a deduction from their pay.   45.  As a result of being required to pay for equipment, as well as penalty  deductions taken from Technicians’ paychecks, Gustech Technicians have received an  hourly rate that is less than the federal and state minimum wage rates in certain work  weeks.   46.  Plaintiffs worked on average between five (5) to seven (7) days per week,  ten (10) to twelve (12) hours per day. Plaintiffs observed that Class Members routinely  work the same schedule.   47.  Plaintiffs and Class Members routinely work in excess of forty (40) hours  per week each week without.   49.  Plaintiff Burrell routinely worked more than 40 hours a week and,  pursuant to Defendant’s classification of him as an independent contractor, received no  overtime pay.  For example, from January 22 to January 28, 2018 and from January 29 to  February 4, 2018 Plaintiff Burrell worked seven days a week, totaling over 60 hours a  workweek, without receiving overtime pay.   50.  Plaintiff Lee routinely worked more than 40 hours a week and, pursuant to  Defendant’s classification of him as an independent contractor, received no overtime pay.  For example, from April 24 to April 30, 2017, Plaintiff Lee worked over 60 hours during  the workweek without receiving overtime pay.    51.  By virtue of the extensive control Gustech exerts over them, and the  nature of their relationship with Gustech, the Technicians are not independent business  operators or agents of independent business operators, as Gustech has misclassified them,  but rather, all Technicians that perform work on behalf of Gustech are employees of  Gustech under the FLSA, North Carolina, and South Carolina state law.   52.  Gustech has intentionally misclassified Plaintiffs and the Classes to avoid  Gustech’s obligations under the FLSA and state wage laws. Gustech saves thousands of  dollars in avoiding expenses associated with its core business by not providing Plaintiffs  and the Classes with proper minimum wage, overtime, or other benefits ordinary  employees are entitled to and enjoy.  54.  Plaintiffs desire to pursue their FLSA claim on behalf of all individuals who  opt-in to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   55.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class are “similarly situated” as that term is used in  29 U.S.C. § 216(b) because, inter alia, all such individuals currently work or worked pursuant  to Gustech’s previously described common business and compensation practices as described  herein, and, as a result of such practices, have been misclassified as independent contractors  and have not been paid the full and legally mandated minimum wage for all hours worked.  Resolution of this action requires inquiry into common facts, including, inter alia,  Gustech’s common misclassification, compensation, and payroll practices.   56.  Specifically, Gustech misclassified Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class as  independent contractors and paid them a set piece rate.   57.  The similarly situated employees are known to Gustech, are readily  identifiable, and can easily be located through Gustech’s business and human resources  records. Gustech employs many FLSA Class Members throughout the United States. These  similarly situated employees may be readily notified of this action through U.S. mail and/or  other means, and allowed to opt-in to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the  purpose of collectively adjudicating their claims for overtime compensation, minimum wage  deficiencies, liquidated damages (or, alternatively, interest), and attorneys’ fees and costs  under the FLSA.  59.  The members of the North Carolina Class are so numerous that joinder of  all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are more than forty (40)  members of the North Carolina Class.   60.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  North Carolina Class because there is no conflict between the claims of Plaintiffs and  those of the North Carolina Class, and Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the North  Carolina Class. Plaintiffs’ counsel are competent and experienced in litigating class actions  and other complex litigation matters, including wage and hour cases like this one.   61.  There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed North  Carolina Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class  members, including, without limitation: whether Gustech has violated and continues to  violate statutory and common law through its policies or practices of not paying its  Satellite Technicians for all hours worked and overtime compensation.   62.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the North Carolina Class in  the following ways, without limitation: (a) Plaintiffs are members of the North Carolina  Class; (b) Plaintiffs’ claims are of the same policies, practices and course of conduct that  form the basis of the claims of the North Carolina Class; (c) Plaintiffs’ claims are based on  the same legal and remedial theories as those of the North Carolina Class and involve similar  factual circumstances; (d) there are no conflicts between the interests of Plaintiffs, the North  Carolina Class Members; and (e) the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs are similar to the  injuries suffered by the North Carolina Class Members.   64.  Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large  number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum  simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous  individual actions would entail. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management  of this class action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior  alternative exists for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.  Members of the  North Carolina Class are readily identifiable from Gustech’s own records. Prosecution of  separate actions by individual members of the North Carolina Class would create the risk  of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual North Carolina Class  members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Gustech.   65.  A class action is superior to other available methods for adjudication of  this controversy because joinder of all members is impractical. Further, the amounts at  stake for many of the North Carolina Class, while substantial, are not great enough to  enable them each to maintain separate suits against Gustech.   66.  Without a class action, Gustech will retain the benefit of its wrongdoing,  which will result in further damages to Plaintiffs and the North Carolina Class. Plaintiffs  envision no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.  B.  The South Carolina Class   68.  The members of the South Carolina Class are so numerous that joinder of  all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are more than forty (40)  members of the South Carolina Class.   69.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  South Carolina Class because there is no conflict between the claims of Plaintiffs and  those of the South Carolina Class, and Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the South  Carolina Class. Plaintiffs’ counsel are competent and experienced in litigating class actions  and other complex litigation matters, including wage and hour cases like this one.   70.  There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed South  Carolina Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class  members, including, without limitation: whether Gustech has violated and continues to  violate statutory and common law through its policies or practices of not paying its  Satellite Technicians for all hours worked and overtime compensation.   71.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the South Carolina Class in  the following ways, without limitation: (a) Plaintiffs are members of the South Carolina  Class; (b) Plaintiffs’ claims are of the same policies, practices and course of conduct that  form the basis of the claims of the South Carolina Class; (c) Plaintiffs’ claims are based on  the same legal and remedial theories as those of the South Carolina Class and involve similar  factual circumstances; (d) there are no conflicts between the interests of Plaintiffs, the South  Carolina Class Members; and (e) the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs are similar to the  injuries suffered by the South Carolina Class Members.   73.  Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large  number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum  simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous  individual actions would entail. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management  of this class action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior  alternative exists for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.  Members of the  South Carolina Class are readily identifiable from Gustech’s own records. Prosecution of  separate actions by individual members of the South Carolina Class would create the risk  of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual South Carolina Class  members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Gustech.   74.  A class action is superior to other available methods for adjudication of  this controversy because joinder of all members is impractical. Further, the amounts at  stake for many of the South Carolina Class, while substantial, are not great enough to  enable them each to maintain separate suits against Gustech.   75.  Without a class action, Gustech will retain the benefit of its wrongdoing,  which will result in further damages to Plaintiffs and the South Carolina Class. Plaintiffs  envision no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.  76.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   78.  The FLSA defines “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer,”  29 U.S.C. 203(e)(1), and “employer” as including “any person acting directly or indirectly in  the interest of an employer in relation to an employee,” 29 U.S.C. 203(d). The FLSA’s  definition of “employ” broadly covers anyone who is “suffer[ed] or permit[ed] to work.” 29  U.S.C. 203(g).   79.  Gustech is subject to the wage requirements of the FLSA because Gustech is  an “employer” under 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).   80.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class are covered employees  entitled to the above-described FLSA’s protections. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).   81.  At all relevant times, Gustech is an “employer” engaged in interstate commerce  and/or in the production of goods for commerce, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.  § 203.   82.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class are not exempt from the requirements of the FLSA.   83.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class are entitled to be paid overtime for hours  worked over forty (40) in a workweek, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207.   84.  Gustech does not maintain accurate records of all hours that Plaintiff and the  FLSA Class worked each workday and the total number of hours worked each workweek as  required by the FLSA. See 29 C.F.R. § 516.2(a)(7).   86.  By failing to pay Plaintiffs for some hours worked, such as for training hours  and troubleshooting calls, and by requiring Plaintiffs to pay for expenses that primarily  benefitted Gustech through various deductions to their wages, Gustech knowingly failed to  compensate Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class overtime in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207.   87.  In violating the FLSA, Gustech acted willfully and with reckless disregard of  clearly applicable FLSA provisions.  88.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   89.  The FLSA requires that covered employees be minimum wage for all hours  worked.  See 29 U.S.C. § 206.   90.  The FLSA defines “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer,”  29 U.S.C. 203(e)(1), and “employer” as including “any person acting directly or indirectly in  the interest of an employer in relation to an employee,” 29 U.S.C. 203(d). The FLSA’s  definition of “employ” broadly covers anyone who is “suffer[ed] or permit[ed] to work.” 29  U.S.C. 203(g).   91.  Gustech is subject to the wage requirements of the FLSA because Gustech is  an “employer” under 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).   92.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class are covered employees  entitled to the above-described FLSA’s protections. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).   94.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class are not exempt from the requirements of the FLSA.   95.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class are entitled to be paid minimum wage for all of  their hours worked, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 206.   96.  By failing to pay Plaintiffs for some hours worked, such as for training hours  and troubleshooting calls, and by requiring Plaintiffs to pay for expenses that primarily  benefitted Gustech through various deductions to their wages, Gustech knowingly failed to  compensate Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class minimum wage in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206.  In violating the FLSA, Gustech acted willfully and with reckless disregard of clearly  applicable FLSA provisions.  97.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   98.  North Carolina’s Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”) requires an employer to  pay all wages due to its employees. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.6.   A.  The North Carolina Class   North Carolina Wage and Hour Act  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the North Carolina Class)   Violation of the FLSA – Minimum Wage  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class)   Violation of the FLSA – Overtime Compensation  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class)  