10.  Defendant is a satellite entertainment service company that provides installation  and repair services of residential and commercial satellite internet and television equipment to  customers in multiple states, including western Arkansas, eastern Oklahoma, Kansas, and  Missouri.     11.  Defendant employed Plaintiff and the Technicians to install and repair residential  and/or commercial satellite internet and television equipment in western Arkansas, eastern  Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri.   12.  Plaintiff and the Technicians did not have a written contract to perform work for  Defendant.    13.  Plaintiff and the Technicians had the ability to work for Defendant indefinitely,  subject to their right to resign and Defendant’s right to terminate them.   14.  Prior to the start of employment, Defendant conducted background checks on  Plaintiff and the Technicians.    15.  Defendant directed Plaintiff and the Technicians to create business bank accounts,  so that any payments from Defendant could be directly deposited into their business bank  accounts.      16.  Plaintiff and the Technicians were required to obtain worker’s compensation  insurance or sign a Certificate of Non-Coverage waiver to work for Defendant.  Plaintiff was  specifically informed that if he refused to do so, he would effectively be terminated by being  removed from the scheduling calendar.      17.  Plaintiff and the Technicians were not required to have any specialized or unique  skill to work for Defendant.    19.  The training program provided Plaintiff and the Technicians with a detailed step- by-step guide on how to do their jobs and how to deal with customers.  The steps Plaintiff and  Technicians had to take were as follows: (1) greet the customer; (2) take before pictures; (3) plug  in the modem and walk around the house to test the strength of the Wi-Fi; (4) explain to the  customer what they were going to do; (5) obtain signature from the client that gives permission  for Plaintiff and the Technicians to perform the installation; (6) install the satellite dish pursuant  to certain instructions by Defendant (i.e., mounting only on certain material, digging a hole no  less than certain inches below ground, using certain amount of concrete to secure the dish); (7)  take after pictures; and (8) obtain signature from the client that indicated that the job was  completed.  Without the signature from the client, Plaintiff and Technicians did not get paid for  the job.    20.  Throughout their employment, Plaintiff and the Technicians were required to  attend mandatory training sessions after the initial training program, including trainings on how  to use new software and perform certain repairs.      21.  Plaintiff and the Technicians were required to work according to the schedule that  was set by Defendant’s schedule.     23.  Plaintiff and the Technicians were essential to the success of Defendant’s  business and their duties were to Defendant’s ability to provide services to its customers because  they provided the services Defendant was selling.    B.  Experience While Working for Defendant    24.  Plaintiff and the Technicians received all assignments, called “work orders,” from  Defendant through an application software called “OASIS” that they were required to download  onto their phone.     25.  Plaintiff and the Technicians had no control over customer volume.   26.  Plaintiff and the Technicians received as many as six work orders a day with  specific directions on what services to provide.     27.  Defendant regularly switched, added, and cancelled work orders without asking  Plaintiff and the Technicians.   28.  Defendant tracked where Plaintiff and the Technicians were at all times through  67.  Pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff’s consent form is attached as  Exhibit A.1  It is likely other individuals will join this case as opt-in Plaintiffs as the case  proceeds.    68.  Pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff seeks to certify the following  FLSA Collective:   All current and former satellite installation and repair technicians who  worked for Defendant and were classified as “independent contractors” at  any time within three (3) years prior to the filing of the original Complaint  in this action through the date of final judgment.    70.  Defendant is liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate Plaintiff  and the FLSA Collective, and as such, notice should be sent to the FLSA Collective.  In violation  of the FLSA, Defendant has denied minimum wage and overtime pay to numerous similarly  situated current and former satellite installation and repair technicians who would benefit from  the issuance of court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join.  Members of  the FLSA Collective are known to Defendant and should be readily identifiable through  Defendant’s records.   71.  Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this  action as a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.   72.  Specifically, Plaintiff brings Count III and IV, as a Rule 23 class action on behalf  of himself and the following persons:    All current and former satellite installation and repair technicians who  worked for Defendant in Missouri and were classified as “independent  contractors” at any time within two (2) years prior to the filing of the  original Complaint in this action through the date of final judgment.   73.  Specifically, Plaintiff brings Count V, as a Rule 23 class action on behalf of  himself and the following persons:    All current and former satellite installation and repair technicians who  worked for Defendant in Missouri and were classified as “independent  contractors” at any time within five (5) years prior to the filing of the  original Complaint in this action through the date of final judgment.   75.  Numerosity:  The potential members of the proposed classes are so numerous  that joinder of all members would be infeasible and impracticable.  While the precise number of  class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, it is estimated that each of the classes above  include at least 20 individuals.     76.  Ascertainable Class:  The proposed classes are ascertainable in that its members  can be identified and located using information contained in Defendant’s payroll and personnel  records.     77.  Typicality:  The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of all members of the  classes because all members of the classes sustained similar injuries and damages arising out of  Defendant’s common course of conduct in violation of the law, and the injuries and damages of  all members of the class were caused by Defendant’s wrongful conduct in violation of the law, as  alleged herein.       78.  Adequacy:  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the classes, will fairly  protect the interests of the members of the classes, and will vigorously pursue this suit.  Plaintiff  has no interests antagonistic to the interests of the other members of the classes, and are not  subject to unique defenses.  Plaintiff’s attorneys are competent, skilled, and experienced in  litigating class actions of this kind and other complex litigation.    80.  Existence of Predominance and Questions of Fact and Law:  There are  common questions of fact and law as to the members of the classes which predominate over  questions affecting only individual members of the classes, including without limitation:   a. Whether Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and the members of the classes  as independent contractors;    b. Whether Defendant failed to fully and accurately record the hours worked  each day and each workweek by the members of the classes as required  under applicable state statutes;   c. Whether Defendant violated Missouri wage and common laws by failing  to pay Plaintiff and members of the classes all compensation due and  owing;   d. Whether Defendant violated Arkansas wage and common laws by failing  to pay Plaintiff and members of the classes all compensation due and  owing;   e. Whether Defendant has been unjustly enriched; and  f. Whether Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and the members of the classes for  damages claimed hereunder, including but not limited to compensatory  and/or punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, pre- and post- judgment interest, statutory and/or liquidated damages, and reasonable  attorneys’ fees and costs.   81.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    82.  At all relevant times herein, Defendant has been and continues to be an employer  within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 206.    83.  The FLSA requires “every employer [to] pay each of his employees who in any  workweek is engaged in commerce” at least the minimum wage.  See 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a)(1).   85.  Department of Labor regulations provide that “‘wages’ cannot be considered to  have been paid by the employer and received by the employee unless they are paid finally and  unconditionally, or ‘free and clear.’”  29 C.F.R. § 531.35.  The FLSA’s minimum wage  requirement is not met “where the employee ‘kicks-back’ directly or indirectly” all or part of the  employer’s wage payment.  Id.  An FLSA violation occurs “in any workweek when the cost of  [tools of the trade] purchased by the employee cuts into the minimum or overtime wages  required to be paid him under the Act.” Id.   86.  At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective did not  qualify for any exemption from the minimum wage obligations imposed by the FLSA.   87.  At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective are, or  were, employees of TSC – and not independent contractors – and, thus, were entitled to receive  the protections afforded by the FLSA.     88.  Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and members of the FLSA  Collective were entitled to minimum wage pay under the FLSA.     89.  Despite this knowledge, Defendant paid Plaintiff and members of the FLSA  Collective a certain percentage of the profits made from the service ultimately purchased and  paid for by the customer, which did not equal or exceed the minimum wage rate.    90.  In addition to the low rates of compensation, Defendant required Plaintiff and  members of the FLSA Collective to pay for all job-related expenses out-of-pocket and did not  reimburse them for those costs.  Thus, the amounts paid to Plaintiff and members of the FLSA  Collective “finally and unconditionally or free and clear” did not equal to or exceed the  minimum wage rate.     92.  As a result of Defendant’s willful violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and members  of the FLSA Collective were injured because they did not receive the minimum wages due to  them.   93.  The exact amount of compensation that Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and  members of the FLSA Collective is unknown at this time, as many of the records necessary to  make such precise calculations are in the possession of Defendant or were not kept by  Defendant.   94.  The FLSA requires employers to make, keep, and preserve records of the wages,  hours, and other conditions and practices of employment, and to preserve such records.  Plaintiff  and members of the FLSA Collective are entitled to review their records of hours worked to  determine the exact amount of minimum wages they are owed by Defendant.  Absent Defendant  keeping these records as required by law, Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective are  entitled to submit their information about the number of hours worked.    95.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective seek an award of  unpaid minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages as provided by  statute, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by statute.  96.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   97.  At all relevant times herein, Defendant has been and continues to be an employer  within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 207.    A.  Employment with Defendant   Failure to Pay Overtime  (Violation of the AMWA, Ark. Code. Code Ann. § 11-4-201, et seq.)  143.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  144.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-211 provides, in relevant part: “[N]o employer shall  employ any of his or her employees for a work week longer than forty (40) hours unless the  employee receives compensation for his or her employment in excess of the hours above  specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay at which he or she  is employed.”  145.  Defendant failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and the members of the class by  failing to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any one week.   146.  Defendant willfully violated the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-218 and is  therefore liable to Plaintiff and the members of the class.  147.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful acts as described herein, Plaintiff and the  members of the class have been deprived of compensation for all time worked and is entitled to  costs and attorneys’ fees.  Failure to Pay Overtime  (Violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.)   Failure to Pay Minimum Wage  (Violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.)  