10.  Defendant employed Plaintiffs at all relevant times within the meaning of the FLSA. 29  U.S.C. § 203(g).    11.  Plaintiffs were employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of  goods for commerce. Defendant is a call center that takes calls from customers around the nation  to troubleshoot difficulties and answer queries regarding their cellular phone services.   Defendant employs over 46,000 people in over 175 “Customer Care Centers” globally including  multiple centers within the United States.     12.  In performing their duties for Defendant, Plaintiffs were engaged in commerce or in the  production of goods for commerce. Plaintiffs were employed as Customer Care Specialists and  were responsible for handling account and/or technical support inquiries over the telephone from  Sprint customers located throughout the United States.   13.  Until on or about January 2012, Defendant utilized a payment scheme known as “ABC”  in which employees were only paid for time spent handling customer calls.  Under the ABC  system, the employees were paid a flat rate per call plus premium pay, which was calculated  based on whether the Customer Care Specialists met certain targets for average call handling  time and positive customer survey responses.     15.  From on or about January 2012, Defendant utilized a payment scheme known as “RBC”  in which employees were supposed to be paid an hourly rate of $9.00 per hour plus premium pay  based on meeting certain criteria up to a maximum of $14.00 per hour.  The employees were also  promised overtime pay.   16.  Under both the ABC and RBC payment schemes Defendant only paid employees based  on the time recorded when they were logged into the time-keeping system, and Plaintiffs were  frequently logged out of the time-keeping system by supervisors and others resulting in unpaid  working time.  For example, Plaintiffs were repeatedly logged out of the time-keeping system  while they were attending a mandatory 3-month training course or when they were taking short  breaks of less than 15 minutes.     17.  Plaintiffs Seth Feinhandler and George W Ivery, IV were moved into “performance  coach” positions where they were required to be away from their work stations to assist other  Customer Care Specialists with customer calls.  Mr. Feinhandler and Mr. Ivery state that they  were frequently logged out of the time-keeping system while they were away from their work  stations.   18.  Plaintiffs would often not be aware that they had been logged out of the system and  would continue to work without the time-system recording their working time.   20.  Plaintiffs customarily and regularly worked many hours in excess of forty (40) hours per  week up to seventy (70) hours in some weeks.   21.  Plaintiffs were not paid for all of the hours they worked, and, as a result, were not paid  minimum wages of $7.25 per hour and overtime of one and one half times their regular rates of  pay.    22.  Upon information and belief, other similarly situated employees also customarily and  regularly worked many hours in excess of forty (40) hours per week and were paid in a fashion  similar to Plaintiffs.   23.  The work performed by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees was with  Defendants’ knowledge.  Defendants set Plaintiffs’ and similarly situated employees’ schedules,  assigned work, and supervised the work.   24.  Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were entitled to overtime at one-and-one-half  times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. Defendants  did not pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees one and one half times their regular rates  of pay for hours worked in excess of forty per week.   25.  Plaintiffs complained on numerous occasions regarding Defendant’s failure to pay for all  of their working time.    26.  Plaintiffs’ employment was terminated by Defendant after the Plaintiffs complained  about, among other things, Defendant’s failure to pay regular and overtime wages.   27.  Defendants’ failed to keep and maintain records of Plaintiff’s working time as required  by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 211.   V.  29.  Plaintiffs were engaged in nonexempt hourly work, as set forth above.   30.  As non-exempt employees, Plaintiffs were legally entitled to be paid the minimum wage  of $7.25 per hour.   31.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206.   32.  Plaintiffs were legally entitled to be paid overtime wages of one-and-one-half times their  regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per each seven (7) day  workweek.    33.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs at one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for  hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per each seven (7) day workweek in violation of the  37.  Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate by reference all of the above numbered paragraphs.   39.  As set forth above, Plaintiffs are aware of other employees who perform similar work for  Defendant.   40.  These employees should be notified of this action and given the chance to join pursuant  to 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).  The class is properly identified as:   All persons who, at any time during the three (3) years immediately preceding the  filing of this lawsuit, worked at any business that was owned, operated, and/or  acquired by Defendants, who were not paid minimum wages and overtime at a  rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess of  forty (40) per week.   41.  Defendant’s practice of not paying employees similarly situated to Plaintiffs for all of the  hours they worked and one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in  excess of forty (40) hours per each seven (7) day workweek is in direct violation of the FLSA.   42.  As a result of Defendant’s willful violations of the FLSA, the similarly situated  employees are entitled to reimbursement of unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, an  additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys fees, costs and  disbursements incurred in this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  43.  Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate by reference all of the above numbered paragraphs.   44.  Defendant willfully violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), by discharging Plaintiffs  in retaliation for complaining about the Defendant’s failure to pay regular and overtime wages.  Defendants’ retaliatory conduct was intended to chill the exercise of statutory rights under the  46.  Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate by reference all of the above-numbered paragraphs.    47.  At the time their employment commenced, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into valid  and enforceable contracts regarding the terms of their pay.  The contracts provided that in  exchange for performing the duties of the job, Defendant would pay Plaintiffs as follows:  a. During an initial three (3) month training period, an hourly rate of $9.50 per hour for  each hour worked, plus overtime pay;  b. After the training period and before January 2012, $1.09 per call plus premium pay  based on average call handling time and customer responses to quality surveys under  the ABC payment scheme; and  c. After January 2012, under the RBC payment scheme, $9.00 per hour plus premium  pay and overtime pay.    48.  Due to the fact that Plaintiffs were regularly and repeatedly logged out of the time- keeping system, Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs in accordance with the terms of their contracts.   49.  Defendant’s breach proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs. As a result of Defendant’s  breach, Plaintiffs have suffered direct and consequential damages, plus interest, expenses, court  costs, and attorney’s fees.   50.  Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate by reference all of the above-numbered paragraphs..   51.  In the alternative to other counts, Defendant accepted services from Plaintiffs without  fully compensating Plaintiffs.    53.  Defendant had actual and constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs expected to be  compensated when Defendant accepted Plaintiffs’ services.    54.  Defendant has not fully paid Plaintiffs.    55.  Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the reasonable value of the services rendered.   56.  Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate by reference all of the facts set forth in the foregoing   paragraphs of this Complaint.    57.  In the alternative to other counts, Defendant made a promise to Plaintiffs that Defendant   did not keep. Defendant promised Plaintiffs that Defendant would pay Plaintiffs as follows:  a. During an initial three (3) month training period, an hourly rate of $9.50 per hour for  each hour worked, plus overtime pay;  b. After the training period and before January 2012, $1.09 per call plus premium pay  based on average call handling time and customer responses to quality surveys under  the ABC payment scheme; and  c. After January 2012, under the RBC payment scheme, $9.00 per hour plus premium  pay and overtime pay.    58.  Plaintiffs reasonably and substantially relied on Defendant’s promise in return for the  work that they performed for Defendant. Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known that  Plaintiff would rely on Defendants promise.    60.  Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendant’s promise resulted in injury to Plaintiffs in the amount  promised rate of pay plus premium pay and overtime for all hours worked.  8.  Defendant owns and operates a call center or “Customer Care Center” in Houston, Texas  where employees, Customer Care Specialists, answer telephone calls from the customers of  Defendant’s corporate clients, such as Sprint.  Said customers call in from various states.   9.  Defendant’s annual revenues exceeded $500,000 in each of the last five years.  