22.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff, Cynthia Fuerte, was paid at a rate of  $8.75 per hour, plus commission and bonus.      23.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff, Terry Dimery, was paid at a rate of $9.00  per hour.   24.  Defendants mission statement states that they are “a people-focused business of  130,000 dedicated professionals, speaking 58 languages and working from more than 150  locations in 33 countries.”  See http://www.convergys.com/about/mission-values (last visited  3/7/17).   25.  Defendants’ website solicits business from clients and states “[l]et Convergys help  you deliver a personalized, multichannel customer experience that meets your customer care and  business goals while lowering your service costs.”  “We combine decades of experience with our  integrated, end-to-end solution of advanced analytics, omnichannel technology, and global  outsourcing to design, unify, and optimize the customer care expereinece.”  See  http://www.convergys.com/client-solutions/capabilities/customer-care (last visited on 3/7/17).   27.  The “Convergys Anywhere program hires sales & service agents who work from  home.”  “For example, when you call the customer service department for your cell phone or cable  provider, you just might be talking to a Convergys home based customer service & sales agent –  answer that call on behalf of one of our clients.  These calls might involve billing questions,  changes or cancellations of services, inquiries on the status of an order, troubleshooting services  etc.”  See http://www.convergys.com/career-details.php?id=R1028342 (last visited on 3/7/17).   28.  Regardless of the geographic location in which the CSR works, all of Defendants’  CSRs use multiple computer networks software applications in the course of performing their job  responsibilities.  These programs and applications are integral and an important part of the CSR’s  work and they cannot perform their jobs without them.   29.  Some of the equipment that all CSRs are required to have includes: a router that  supplies two or more IP addresses and is connected to a PC; a USB or Analog Headset; a minimum  of a 17” monitor with minimum resolution of 1280 x1024 (Televisions used as monitors, touch  screen monitors and dual monitors are not acceptable); and a Convergys Approved Flashdrive.   30.  In order to perform their job, Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, were required  to boot up and log in to various computer networks, software programs and applications, including  those referenced above, in order to access information necessary to perform their job functions.   The pre-shift boot-up/log-in process took substantial time on a daily basis ranging from twelve  (12) and eighteen (18) minutes per day, and even longer on days where Defendants’ computer  networks and programs were not working properly.   32.  The Daily Start of Day Checklist laid out thirteen-steps in chronological order: 1)  Make sure your computer is completely off; 2) Reboot your Modem and Router; 3) With your PC  still in OFF mode, insert your USB drive into an available USB port; 4) Turn on your PC and begin  tapping the required function key to access the Boot Menu for your PC; 5) Once you have access  to the boot menu, select the designated USB option; 6) Start the Linux Desktop (Convergys Home  Agent Desktop Environment), then you should see Connection Established in the bottom right; 7)  Log into Lady with Lamp page, up to 5 minutes early, with your LAN ID and LAN Passowrd; 8)  Next a new tab will populate for the Citrix XenApp login … login using your LAN ID and LAN  Password; 9) At this point your e-start punch time will take place automatically; 10) Click Agent  at Home folder displayed on your Citrix applications screen; 11) Click XA65 – eBay Training; 12)  At this point you will see “connecting …”, once that is complete, click OK; 13) At the start of your  scheduled shift, you will need to change your activity code in e-start to 37-002. (Do not be late).   Exhibit C, Daily Start of Day Checklist.   33.  The process as described in the Daily Start of Day Checklist, requires CSRs to  complete at least eight (8) of the thirteen (13) start-up steps before they are clocked in.   34.  The pre-shift off-the-clock time Plaintiffs and all other CSRs spend booting- up/logging-in to their computers directly benefited Defendants.   35.  The pre-shift boot-up/log-in process was an integral and indispensable part of  Plaintiffs’ job responsibilities as CSRs.   37.  The post-shift work performed after disconnecting from Defendants’ network and  logging out of the timekeeping system took between three (3) and four (5) minutes at the end of  each shift.   38.  The post-shift off-the clock time Plaintiffs and all other CSRs spend logging- out/shutting-down directly benefited Defendants.   39.  The post-shift log-out/shut-down process was an integral and indispensable part of  Plaintiffs’ job responsibilities as CSRs.   40.  At all relevant times, Defendants controlled Plaintiffs’ and all other CSRs’ work  schedule, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions.   41.  Defendants maintained and enforced a common attendance policy for all CSRs that  was based on a point system, whereby, the CSR was assessed points for each absence, tardy, and  early departure.  In the event that a CSR accumulated 12 points, the consequence was “probable  termination of employment.”  Conversely, if the CSR worked 60 calendar days without an  occurrence, they were credited with one (1) full attendance point.   42.  Despite knowing Plaintiffs and other CSRs performed work before and after their  scheduled shifts, Defendants and their managers failed to make any effort to stop or disallow this  pre-, mid-, and post-shift work and instead suffered and permitted it to happen.   43.  Defendants possess, control, and/or have access to information and electronic data  indicating the times Plaintiffs and other CSRs booted up and logged into their computers and  logged-out and shut-down each day and the time they logged into their telephone systems.   45.  Despite their ability to track the amount of time Plaintiffs and other CSRs spent in  connection with the pre-shift boot-up/log-in process and post-shift shut-down/log-out, and  technical downtime, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other CSRs for the off-the-clock work  they performed each shift.  A. Pre-Shift Off-the-Clock Work   47.  Defendants’ CSRs completed the pre-shift process outlined above each shift;  however, they were not actually “clocked in” for their shifts until after they started-up their  computers, connected to the virtual private network, and opened several essential software  applications (many of which required usernames and passwords).    48.  As a result, Plaintiffs and other CSRs spent between twelve (12) and eighteen (18)  minutes at the beginning of each shift performing off-the-clock work for Defendants.   49.  The unpaid off-the-clock work performed prior to each shift by Plaintiffs and other  CSRs directly benefitted Defendants, and the tasks undertaken in connection with the off-the-clock  work were integral and indispensable to their job duties and responsibilities as CSRs.  B. Post-Shift Off-the-Clock Work   51.  At the end of the day, after the CSRs removed themselves from the Avaya  “available” status, closed multiple software applications, disconnected from Citrix, and performed  a complete shut-down. After clocking out of Defendants’ timekeeping system (Citrix),  the  Plaintiffs and other CSRs must complete the following essential work activities off-the-clock in  chronological order:   First, CSRs were required to log-out and close down Citrix.  In order to log-out/close Citrix,  after clicking through multiple windows, the CSR was required to wait for the application  to disconnect.  This step generally took about one (1) minute.   Next, the CSR was required to close windows that remained open, such as Mozilla Fire  Fox.   After the CSR had fully logged-out/closed Citrix and any other windows that remained  open, they were required to disconnect and log-off of the Convergys Home Desktop.  This  process took between one (1) to two (2) minutes, or even longer if there were connection  issues.   The CSR was then required to do a complete shut-down of their computer.  This took  approximately one (1) additional minute.   52.  Pursuant to the above process, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other CSRs  for three (3) to four (4) minutes of off-the-clock work performed each shift.     53.  The unpaid post-shift off-the-clock work performed by Plaintiffs and other CSRs  at the end of each shift directly benefits Defendants and the tasks undertaken in connection with  the post-shift off-the-clock work are integral and indispensable to their job duties and  responsibilities as CSRs.  C. Technical Malfunction (Down-Time) Spent Off-the-Clock   55.  Before contacting the technical support team with a technical problem, Defendants  trained and instructed Plaintiffs and other CSRs to perform a “Power Down” to correct the  problem.  A “Power Down” required the CSR to push and hold the power button on their computer  for three seconds.  This completely powered down the computer, removed the CSR from the  timekeeping system, and required them to perform the entire log in process set forth in paragraph  45 of this Complaint.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other CSRs for this time.    56.  When Plaintiffs and other CSRs encountered technical difficulties with their  networks, programs, phones, applications, and other programs that they could not resolve with a  “Power Down,” they were required to change their status from “Available,” clock-out of  Defendants’ timekeeping system, contact the technical support team, and wait/assist the technical  support team while they attempted to resolve the problem.  This often required them to wait on  hold for appreciable amounts of time.     57.  Although Plaintiffs and other CSRs were compensated for some tech down time,  they were not paid for all time spent working with Defendants’ technical team.   58.  Additionally, Plaintiffs and other CSRs often lost their connection to Defendant’s  VPN or to other applications when they went on break and their systems became idle. As a result,  Plaintiffs and other CSRs were required to undertake the log in process laid out in paragraph 45 of  this Complaint.   59.  The mid-shift time spent off the clock directly benefitted Defendants’, and was  compensable time, and is an element of damages in this lawsuit.   61.  An example of a specific workweek where Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Terry  Dimery all overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours (as mandated by the FLSA) includes  the following:  Pay Period of 12/06/2015 to 12/19/2015   Plaintiff’s paystub states that he worked 86.51 hours and was paid at a regular hourly rate  of $9.00 per hour for each hour of each workweek.     Plaintiff’s overtime rate was $13.50 per hour.  Plaintiff received 6.46 hours of overtime,  but no overtime pay for the time spent undertaking the pre-, mid-, and post-shift activities  described herein.   With pre-shift time of 12-18 minutes per shift and post-shift time of 3-4 minutes per shift,  Plaintiff should have been paid for an additional 75 to 110 minutes for each workweek at  his overtime rate of $13.50 per hour (assuming that he worked five shifts in a week) and  an additional amount for tech time if he experienced connectivity issues during this pay  period.  Exhibit D, Dimery Paystubs.  Pay Period of 10/23/206 to 11/05/2016   Plaintiff worked 93.55 hours and was paid at a regular hourly rate of $9.00 per hour for  each hour of each workweek.     Plaintiff’s overtime rate was $13.50 per hour.  Plaintiff received 5.04 hours of overtime,  but no overtime pay for the time spent undertaking the pre-, mid-, and post-shift activities  described herein.   With pre-shift time of 12-18 minutes per shift and post-shift time of 3-4 minutes per shift,  Plaintiff should have been paid for an additional 75 to 110 minutes for each workweek at  his overtime rate of $13.50 per hour (assuming that he worked five shifts in a week) and  an additional amount for tech time if he experienced connectivity issues during this pay  period.  Exhibit D, Dimery Paystubs.   63.  At all relevant times, Defendants directed and directly benefited from the work  performed by Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees in connection with the above described  pre-, mid- and post-shift activities performed by Plaintiffs and other CSRs.   64.  At all relevant times, Defendants controlled the work schedules, duties, protocols,  applications, assignments and employment conditions of Plaintiffs and other CSRs.   65.  At all relevant times, Defendants were able to track the amount of time Plaintiffs  and the other CSRs spent in connection with the pre-, mid- and post-shift activities however,  Defendants failed to do so and failed to compensate Plaintiffs and other CSRs for the off-the-clock  work they performed.   66.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the CSRs were non-exempt hourly employees,  subject to the requirements of the FLSA.   67.  At all relevant times, Defendants used its attendance and adherence policies against  Plaintiffs and the CSRs in order to pressure them into performing the pre-, mid- and post-shift off- the-clock work.   68.  Defendants expressly trained and instructed Plaintiffs and its other CSRs to perform  the above-described pre-shift activities before clocking into Defendants’ timekeeping system and  their shift’s scheduled start time to ensure they were prepared to take calls at the moment their  shift began.   70.  Defendants knew or should have known that the time spent by Plaintiffs and its  other CSRs in connection with the pre-, mid- and post-shift activities is compensable under the  law. Indeed, in light of the explicit DOL guidance cited above, there is no conceivable way for  Defendants to establish that they acted in good faith.   71.  Unpaid wages related to the off-the-clock work described herein is owed to  Plaintiffs at the FLSA mandated overtime premium of one-and-one-half the Plaintiffs’ regular  hourly rate because Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek.    72.  Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA on behalf of  themselves and on behalf of:  All current and former hourly at-home customer service  representatives who worked for Convergys at any time from March  ___, 2014 through the date of judgment  (hereinafter referred to as the “Class” or “FLSA Collective”).  Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend  this definition if necessary.   73.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, their failure to properly  compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated CSRs.   74.  Excluded from the proposed FLSA Collective are Defendants’ executives,  administrative and professional employees, including computer professionals and outside sales  persons.   76.  All of the work that Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective have  performed has been assigned by Defendants, and/or Defendants have been aware of all of the work  that the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have performed.   77.  As part of its regular business practice, Defendants intentionally, willfully, and  repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to  Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective.  This policy and pattern or practice includes,  but is not limited to:  a.  Willful failure to pay its employees, including Plaintiffs and the members of the  FLSA Collective, for all premium overtime wages for hours that they worked off- the-clock in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek;   b.  Willful failure to pay its employees, including Plaintiffs and the members of the  FLSA Collective, for hours worked off-the-clock;  c.  Willful failure to record all of the time that its employees, including Plaintiffs and  the members of the FLSA Collective, have worked for the benefit of Defendants.   78.  Defendants are aware or should have been aware that federal law required them to  pay Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective overtime premiums for all hours worked  in excess of forty (40) per workweek.   79.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.   81.  The employment relationships between Defendants and every proposed FLSA  Collective member are the same and differ only by name, location, and rate of pay. The key issues  – the amount of uncompensated pre-shift start-up/log-in time, time spent in connection with mid- shift connectivity issues, and the amount of post-shift log-out/shut-down time owed to each  employee – does not vary substantially among the proposed FLSA Collective members.   82.  There are many similarly situated current and former CSRs who have been  underpaid in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised  notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it.   83.  This notice should be sent to the FLSA Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).   84.  Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, are readily  identifiable, and can be located through Defendants’ records.   85.  Plaintiffs estimate the putative Class, including both current and former employees  over the relevant period, includes hundreds, if not thousands of members.  The precise number of  Class members should be readily available from a review of Defendants’ personnel and payroll  records.  87.  The members of the Rule 23 Nationwide Class are so numerous that joinder of all  Rule 23 Nationwide Class members in this case would be impractical.  Plaintiffs reasonably  estimate there are thousands of Rule 23 Nationwide Class members.  Rule 23 Nationwide Class  members should be easy to identify from Defendants’ computer systems and electronic payroll  and personnel records.   88.  There is a well-defined community of interests among Rule 23 Nationwide Class  members and common questions of law and fact predominate in this action over any questions  affecting individual members of the Rule 23 Nationwide Class.  These common legal and factual  questions, include, but are not limited to, the following:  a. Whether the pre-shift time Rule 23 Nationwide Class members spend on start-up  and log-in activities each session is compensable time;  b. Whether the post-shift time Rule 23 Nationwide Class members spend on shutdown  and log-out activities is compensable time;   c. Whether mid-shift time spent by the Rule 23 Nationwide Class members in  connection with logging back into their computers after breaks, out of their  computers to go on breaks, and for technical connectivity issues is compensable  time; and   d. Whether Defendants’ non-payment of wages to the Rule 23 Nationwide Class  members for all compensable time amounted to a breach of contract.   90.  Plaintiffs will fully and adequately protect the interests of the Rule 23 Nationwide  Class and they retained counsel who are qualified and experienced in the prosecution of nationwide  wage and hour class actions. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have interests that are contrary to,  or conflicting with, the interests of the Rule 23 Nationwide Class.   91.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, because, inter alia, it is economically infeasible for Rule 23  Nationwide Class members to prosecute individual actions of their own given the relatively small  amount of damages at stake for each individual along with the fear of reprisal by their employer.   92.  This case will be manageable as a Rule 23 Class action.  Plaintiffs and their counsel  know of no unusual difficulties in this case and Defendants and its corporate clients all have  advanced, networked computer and payroll systems that will allow the class, wage, and damages  issues in this case to be resolved with relative ease.   93.  Because the elements of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied in this case, class certification  is appropriate.  Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393; 130 S. Ct.  1431, 1437 (2010) (“[b]y its terms [Rule 23] creates a categorical rule entitling a plaintiff whose  suit meets the specified criteria to pursue his claim as a class action”).   94.  Because Defendants acted and refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the  Rule 23 Nationwide Class and declaratory relief is appropriate in this case with respect to the Rule  23 Nationwide Class as a whole, class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) is also appropriate.  95.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous paragraphs herein and further allege  as follows.   96.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were joint employers under 29  U.S.C. § 203(d) of the FLSA and subject to the mandates of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.   See also 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b).   97.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendants engaged in interstate commerce, or  in the production of goods for commerce, as defined by the FLSA.   98.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were “employees” of Defendants  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1) of the FLSA.  