16. Defendants are flooring contractors, specializing in installing tile for businesses across the United  States.  Defendants have flown their employees to install tile at various jobsites throughout the  United States, including in New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Kansas, Utah, Colorado, Massachusetts,  Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, New York, Florida, Washington and Oklahoma.     17. Named Plaintiff Hawthorn has been an Installer for Defendants from September 1, 2017 through  the present.  Named Plaintiff Bush has been a Helper for Defendants from July 1, 2017 through  July 1, 2018.   18. Named Plaintiff Hawthorn was employed by Defendants as an Installer for tile installation jobs  across the United States, including in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  The Class Members are and  have been employed in some or all of the states listed above, including New Mexico, Arizona,  Texas, Kansas, Utah, Colorado, Massachusetts, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, New York, Florida,  Washington and Oklahoma.      19. Defendants employ Installers and Helpers in each of their jobsites throughout the United States,  including in New Mexico.     20. In the performance of their work, Plaintiffs handle tools, equipment, and other materials that were  manufactured outside of any state in which they have performed.  A. Thomas Thompson is individually liable for Defendants’ violations.   21. As the Owner/Manager of Fiesta Flooring, LLC, Thomas Thompson independently exercised  control over the work performed by Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.   22. Thomas Thompson is responsible for running the day-to-day operations of Fiesta Flooring, LLC.   24. Thomas Thompson, acting directly in the interest of Fiesta Flooring, LLC, determined the work to  be performed by Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.    25. Thomas Thompson, acting directly in the interest of Fiesta Flooring, LLC, determined the locations  where Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated would work.   26. Thomas Thompson, acting directly in the interest of Fiesta Flooring, LLC, determined the  conditions of employment for Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.    27. Thomas Thompson, acting directly in the interest of Fiesta Flooring, LLC, maintained employment  records on Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.    28. Thomas Thompson, acting directly in the interest of Fiesta Flooring, LLC, possessed and, in fact,  exercised the power to hire, fire and discipline Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.  B. The Class Members were misclassified.  29. Defendants classified Plaintiffs and the Class Members as “exempt” from the overtime protections  of the FLSA and NM Wage Act.   30. As an Installer, Plaintiff Hawthorn as well as other Installers were paid on a piece rate basis during  tile installation.  Once all tile had been installed, Plaintiff Hawthorn as well as other Installers were  paid a day rate.  Helpers, such as Plaintiff Charles Bush, were always paid on a day rate.  Neither  Installers nor Helpers were paid any additional compensation for hours worked in excess of forty  in a week, despite the fact that they were both clearly non-exempt employees.   31. The Class Member Installers were paid just as Plaintiff Hawthorn was paid, and the Class Member  Helpers were paid just as Plaintiff Bush was paid.  None were paid any additional compensation  for hours worked in excess of forty in a week.   33. Rather, Plaintiffs spend most of their time performing manual tasks associated with laying tile at  jobsites throughout the United States.  The job duties of the Installers and Helpers at each of the  Defendants’ jobsites was and is essentially the same.  As a result, each Installer and Helper  performed the same or similar job duties throughout the Defendants’ operations.  The job functions  of Plaintiffs required little to no official training, and they did not require a college education or  other advanced degree.   34. The daily and weekly activities of Plaintiffs were routine and largely governed by standardized  plans, procedures, and checklists created by Defendants. Virtually every job function was  predetermined by Defendants, including the location and dates of the job, the crew members to be  utilized for a specific job, and what kind of tile would be installed. Plaintiffs were prohibited from  varying their job duties outside of the predetermined parameters.   35. Plaintiffs were not paid on a salary basis.   36. Plaintiffs did not direct the work of two or more employees at any time during their employment.   Plaintiffs did not have the authority to hire or fire other employees, and their suggestions and  recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or any other change of status  of other employees were not given particular weight.     37. Plaintiffs did not perform work that required knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science  or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction; and  they do not perform work in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor.   39. Although they worked very long hours, Plaintiffs were misclassified or otherwise treated as exempt  under the Fair Labor Standards Act and those Plaintiffs who are also NM Class Members were  misclassified or otherwise treated as exempt under the NM Wage Act.  Defendants required the  Plaintiffs to work the long hours described above, and thus knew that Named Plaintiffs and Class  Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.  Nonetheless, Defendants failed and  refused to compensate the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members at a rate that is not less than time- and-one-half their regular rates of pay for the hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.     40. Defendants have employed and are employing other individuals as Installers and Helpers who have  performed the same job duties under the same pay provisions as Named Plaintiffs, in that they have  performed, or are performing, the same job duties, have been misclassified as “exempt” employees,  have consistently worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek and have been denied overtime  compensation at a rate of not less than one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay.   41. Upon information and belief, in late 2018, Defendants consulted with the Department of Labor,  who notified Defendants that Defendants’ Helpers and Installers should all be paid overtime if they  worked over forty hours per week.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ response to this  news was to attempt to force its Installers and Helpers to sign arbitration agreements.   43. Named Plaintiffs seeks conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the following  class (the “FLSA Class Members”):  All current and former Installers and Helpers of Defendants who were  not paid overtime in at least one workweek in the last three years.     44. Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members performed the same or similar job duties as one  another in that they worked as, and performed the duties of, non-exempt employees on Defendants’  worksites, including worksites in New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Kansas, Utah, Colorado,  Massachusetts, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, New York, Florida, Washington and Oklahoma.   Further, Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members were subjected to the same pay provisions  in that they were all paid a day rate or a piece rate and a day rate but were not compensated at the  rate of at least one and one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a  workweek, as specifically discussed above.   45.  Defendants’ failure to compensate employees for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek as  required by the FLSA results from a policy or practice of misclassifying its Installers and Helpers  as exempt from the overtime protections of the FLSA. This policy or practice is applicable to the  Named Plaintiffs and all FLSA Class Members.  Application of this policy or practice does not  depend on the personal circumstances of the Named Plaintiffs or those joining this lawsuit.  Rather,  the same policy or practice that resulted in the non-payment of overtime compensation to Named  Plaintiffs also applied to all FLSA Class Members.    47. Named Plaintiff Hawthorn seeks certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules  of Civil Procedure (the “NM Class Members”) as follows:   All current and former Installers and Helpers of Defendants who were  not paid overtime in at least one workweek in the last three years and  who worked for Defendants in New Mexico in at least one workweek.     48. Named Plaintiff Hawthorn, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees,  seeks relief on a class basis challenging Defendants practice misclassifying the NM Class Members  as exempt from the overtime protections of the NM Wage Act and therefore failing to pay Named  Plaintiff Hawthorn and other similarly situated employees one and one-half times their regular  hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a week.   49. Named Plaintiff Hawthorn and the NM Class Members performed the same or similar job duties  as one another in that they worked as, and performed the duties of, non-exempt employees on  Defendants’ worksites in New Mexico.  Further, Named Plaintiff Hawthorn and the NM Class  Members were subjected to the same pay provisions in that they were all classified as exempt  employees, were paid piece rate and/or day rate, and were not paid any additional compensation  for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, as specifically discussed above.   51. Therefore, throughout the relevant period, Defendants knew that Named Plaintiff Hawthorn and  NM Class Members were not being properly compensated for all of their hours worked.   52. Defendants maintained common work, time, and pay policies and procedures for their Installers  and Helpers based out of New Mexico. As a result, Named Plaintiff Hawthorn and NM Class  Members are similarly situated and have been regularly deprived of pay for workweeks during  which they worked more than forty hours.   53. Plaintiff Hawthorn’s NM Wage Act claims against Defendants satisfy the numerosity,  commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority requirements for the certification of a class  action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.   54. Numerosity. The class satisfies the numerosity standard as it is believed that there are at least  fifteen NM Class Members. Consequently, joinder of all NM Class Members in a single action is  impracticable. The data required to calculate the size of the class is within the sole control of  Defendants.     56. Typicality. Named Plaintiff Hawthorn’s claims are typical of those of the class because Named  Plaintiff Hawthorn’s claims arise from the same course of conduct and legal theories as the claims  of the prospective NM Class Members. Like the NM Class Members, Named Plaintiff Hawthorn  worked as a non-exempt employee on Defendants’ New Mexico jobsites.  Like the NM Class  Members, Named Plaintiff Hawthorn regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week.  Like  the NM Class Members, Named Plaintiff Hawthorn was misclassified as exempt and was not  compensated at proper overtime rates for all overtime hours worked. The other facts outlined above  likewise apply equally to both Named Plaintiff Hawthorn and the NM Class Members.   57. Adequacy. Named Plaintiff Hawthorn is an adequate representative of the class because his  interests do not conflict with the interests of the NM Class Members he seeks to represent. The  interests of the members of the class will be fairly and adequately protected by Named Plaintiff  Hawthorn and the undersigned counsel, who have experience in employment and class action  lawsuits.   59. During the relevant period, Defendants violated Section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207, and  215(a)(2), by employing employees, including Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members, in  an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning  of the FLSA as stated herein above, for workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating  such employees for their work in excess of forty hours per week at rates no less than one-and-one- half times their regular rates for which they were employed.  Defendants have acted willfully in  failing to pay Named Plaintiffs and the Class Members in accordance with applicable law.  60. During the relevant period, Defendants violated the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, N.M. STAT.  § 50-4-22 (West 2018), by employing employees, including Named Plaintiff Hawthorn and the  NM Class Members, for workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating such employees  for their work in excess of forty hours per week at rates no less than one-and-one-half times their  regular hourly rate.  Defendants’ violation of New Mexico Minimum Wage Act occurred as part  of a continuing course of conduct.  ACCORDANCE WITH NEW MEXICO MINIMUM WAGE ACT   ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  