11.  CCI operates and maintains a website which describes its business as “[s]upplying  award-winning, mobile field service technicians” that CCI can “immediately deploy.”   12.  CCI relies on Technicians, such as Plaintiffs, who install, service and repair Dish  Network satellite TV and Internet services throughout the southeastern United States.  On its  website, CCI refers to these workers as “our service technicians.”   13.  CCI Technicians perform core work that is necessary to CCI’s business, namely  providing installation and product support for residential and commercial customers.   14.  As described above, during the relevant statutory periods, Plaintiffs worked as full- time as Technicians for CCI in North Carolina and South Carolina.   15.  CCI treated Plaintiffs and all other Technicians as independent contractors, when  the economic reality of the position is that of an employee, and CCI retains the right of control,  and, in fact, actually does control their work.   16.  For example, the work performed by Plaintiffs and Technicians is an integral part  of CCI’s business.  CCI is in the business of providing satellite TV and Internet installation and  repair services.  Plaintiffs and Class Members literally performed these exact services, so that  without the Technicians, CCI would have no business at all.   18.  Plaintiffs and Class Members do not make any significant investments in their work  relative to the substantial investment of CCI.     19.  Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ work does not require special skills, judgment or  initiative because all jobs are scheduled and assigned through CCI, and CCI provides training and  guidelines regarding how Plaintiffs and Class Members must perform their work.   20.  Plaintiffs and Class Members are not customarily engaged in an independently  established trade, occupation, profession, or business, and their relationships with CCI are  indefinite, resembling an employment relationship.     21.  In its agreements with Technicians, CCI reserves the right to control the work  performed by Plaintiffs and Class Members.  This includes CCI determining the pay scale of the  work provided by the Plaintiffs and Class Members “at the time the service is performed.”   31.  Plaintiffs bring Count I and II of this lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) as a collective action on behalf of themselves and the following individuals:  All Technicians who were classified as independent contractors while performing  work for Custom Communications, Inc. (“CCI”) in the United States from three  years before the filing of this Complaint to the present (the “FLSA Collective”).     33.  The similarly situated employees are known to CCI, are readily identifiable, and  can easily be located through CCI’s business and human resources records.   34.  CCI 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 minimum wage and overtime compensation.   35.  Plaintiffs bring Counts III and IV of this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to FED.  R. CIV. P. 23, on behalf of themselves and the following class:  All Technicians who were classified as independent contractors while performing  work for Custom Communications, Inc. (“CCI”) in North Carolina from two years  before the filing of this Complaint to the present (the “North Carolina Class”).   36.  Plaintiffs bring Count V of this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23, on behalf of themselves and the following class:  All Technicians who were classified as independent contractors while performing work for  Custom Communications, Inc. (“CCI”) in South Carolina from three years before the filing  of this Complaint to the present (the “South Carolina Class”).   37.  The members of the North Carolina Class and 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 North Carolina Class and more than forty (40) members of  the South Carolina Class.   39.  There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed Rule 23 classes, which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.  The common questions  include whether CCI has violated and continues to violate the relevant state wage laws by treating  class members as “independent contractors,” failing to pay them overtime and statutory minimum  wage, and/or deducting substantial amounts from class members’ weekly pay.   40.  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.  The North Carolina Class and South Carolina Class  are readily identifiable from CCI’s own records.  Prosecution of separate actions by individual  members of the North Carolina Class or South Carolina Class would create the risk of inconsistent  or varying adjudications with respect to individual North Carolina Class or South Carolina Class  members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for CCI.   42.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to redefine the Classes prior to filing a motion for notice  to similarly situated employees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), prior to filing a motion for class  certification pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23, and thereafter, as necessary.  43.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   44.  CCI is an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s), because it  has annual gross sales or business of at least $500,000 and has employees engaged in interstate  commerce.   45.  Plaintiffs and FLSA Class were employees of CCI for purposes of the FLSA  during all times relevant to this Complaint, despite being misclassified by CCI as independent  contractors. CCI failed to pay Plaintiff and FLSA Class members an hourly rate of at least the  minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206 for all hours  worked.   46.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class members are also entitled to liquidated damages  equal to the amount of unpaid minimum wages due to them under the FLSA, pursuant to the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   48.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   49.  The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated overtime pay for all  hours worked over forty (40) hours at no less than one and a half (1 ½) times their regular rate of  pay.  See 29 U.S.C. § 207.   50.  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).    51.  CCI is subject to the wage requirements of the FLSA because CCI is an “employer”  under 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).   52.  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).   53.  At all relevant times, CCI 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.    54.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class are not exempt from the requirements of the FLSA.   55.  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.   57.  CCI, pursuant to its policies and practices, knowingly failed to pay Plaintiffs and  the FLSA Class overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek in  violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207.    58.  In violating the FLSA, CCI acted willfully and with reckless disregard of clearly  applicable FLSA provisions.  59.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   60.  Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.8(a)(2), an employer may only withhold or  divert any portion of an employee’s wages, “when the amount of the proposed deduction is known  and agreed upon in advance,” after meeting several requirements, including, but not limited to: (1)  receiving written authorization from each employee “on or before the payday(s) for the pay  period(s) from which the deduction is to be made”; (2) providing the reason for each deduction;  and (3) providing advance written notice of the actual amount to be deducted.   61.  CCI violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.8(a)(2) by not receiving sufficient  authorization from Plaintiffs and the North Carolina Class, including but not limited to, failing to  receive written authorization that “states the actual dollar amount” from each employee “on or  before the payday(s) for the pay period(s) from which the deduction is to be made.”   63.  CCI does not have written authorization from Plaintiffs or any members of the  North Carolina Class to withhold, divert, or deduct any portion of his or her wages that concern  this lawsuit.   64.  Pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 95-25.22, an employer, such as CCI, who fails to  pay an employee wages in conformance with the NCWHA shall be liable to the employee for the  wages or expenses that were not paid, pre-judgment interest, liquidated damages, court costs and  attorneys’ fees incurred in recovering the unpaid wages.  65.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   66.  CCI has received and benefited from the uncompensated labors of Plaintiffs and  the North Carolina Class, such that to retain said benefit without compensation would be  inequitable and rise to the level of unjust enrichment.   67.  At all relevant times hereto, CCI devised and implemented a plan to increase its  earnings and profits by fostering a scheme of securing work from Plaintiffs and the North Carolina  Class without paying wages for all hours worked, by making unauthorized deductions from  Plaintiffs’ pay, and by requiring Plaintiffs to pay for CCI’s own business expenses.   69.  Accordingly, it would be inequitable for CCI to retain the benefit of Plaintiffs’ and  the North Carolina Class’ services without paying them wages for all hours worked as required by  law.   70.  Plaintiffs and the North Carolina Class are entitled to judgment in an amount equal  to the benefits unjustly retained by CCI.  71.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   72.   CCI is an “employer” as defined by the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act,  S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-10(1), because it employs individuals within the State of South  Carolina.   73.  CCI employed James Kobe Jackson and the South Carolina Class members within  the State of South Carolina. Although CCI misclassified Jackson and the South Carolina Class  members as “independent contractors,” Jackson and the South Carolina Class were truly  “employees” of CCI.   74.  CCI failed to provide written notice to Jackson and South Carolina Class  members of deductions to their pay, as required by Section 41-10-30 of the Act.   75.  CCI failed to pay Jackson and the South Carolina Class members all wages due,  as required by Sections 41-10-40 and -50 of the Act, because of the unlawful deductions to their  pay.   76.  CCI’s failure to pay Jackson and the South Carolina Class members all wages due  is willful, without justification, and in violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.   Unjust Enrichment Under North Carolina Law  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the North Carolina Class)   Violation of the FLSA—Failure to Pay Minimum Wage  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class)   Violation of the North Carolina’s Deduction Statute  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the North Carolina Class)   Violation of South Carolina Deduction Statute  (On Behalf of Plaintiff James Kobe Jackson and the South Carolina Class)   Violation of the FLSA—Failure to Pay Overtime  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class)  