12. Plaintiff Reed held this position until she was involuntarily terminated on or about March 29,  2019.  Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals worked as Case Managers and in similar  positions performing case management services for Defendants (collectively, “CM’s”).     13. Plaintiff McLinden was initially hired by one or both Defendants in 2005 as a staff nurse on  the surgical unit at Pekin Hospital. She began her career as a Case Manager in or around  2008 until approximately 2011 when she left Pekin Hospital’s employ to pursue a nursing  position at a different entity.  Plaintiff McLinden returned to Pekin Hospital in approximately  2014 as a staff nurse on the surgical unit and she rejoined the Case Management department  in approximately 2015, where she remained a full-time employee of Defendant through  approximately December,2019.    14. As CM’s, Plaintiffs and the similarly situated individuals’ primary job duties were non- exempt, consisting of reviewing patients’ chart, interviewing patients, and discharge planning  and set up for needed services.    15. From approximately June, 2016 to approximately February, 2018, Plaintiffs were paid an  hourly rate for their work as a Case Manager and were paid overtime for time worked beyond  a forty-hour work week; and were additionally paid “on-call pay” for time worked during  evenings and weekends every other week.    17.  At that time, Plaintiffs and the similarly situated individuals were classified as exempt from  federal and state overtime laws by Defendants.   18.  Defendants permitted Plaintiffs and the similarly situated individuals to work more than  forty (40) hours per week without overtime pay.  Just weeks after changing Plaintiffs’  compensation classification to exempt, Defendants instituted a ‘Pilot Project’ which  essentially combined two job titles into one, requiring Plaintiffs to work even more overtime  hours than before their classification was changed to exempt.      19.  Plaintiff Reed typically started her workday at approximately 8:00 a.m., and although her  workday was scheduled to end at or around 4:30 p.m., she frequently, at least three to four  times weekly, worked 12 hours or more in a given work day and often worked from her home  until 8:00 p.m. or later.     20. Plaintiff McLinden worked her regular shift plus overtime and encountered criticism from  Defendants for not being willing or capable of accessing information remotely from her  home via the internet so she could continue working after she left the hospital grounds.  As a  result, it was common that in any given work week, Plaintiffs estimate that they worked at  least approximately fifty (50) hours (or more) without receiving any straight time or overtime  compensation for the additional amount of time worked beyond forty hours in a work week.    21. Plaintiffs also remained on-call in the evenings and weekends every other week without  additional pay.    23.  Defendants knew that the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals were working  unpaid overtime hours because they required Plaintiffs and others to work overtime hours in  order to complete all of their work assignments and meet Defendants’ pre-determined goals.     24.  Plaintiffs’ supervisors were also aware that Plaintiffs worked overtime because they were  regularly included in conversations, emails and texts with Plaintiffs, at times outside of their  regularly scheduled hours.    25. Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals complained to Defendants’ management that they  were not being properly compensated for overtime.  Specifically, Plaintiffs complained that  their work duties and responsibilities had not changed since they had been misclassified as  non-exempt, and because the nature of the working conditions, Plaintiffs suggested on  multiple occasions that Defendants should change their classification status back to non- exempt, and Defendants should pay them and other CM’s an overtime premium for the time  they worked beyond forty hours per work week. Defendants ignored these requests and did  not address these complaints.   27.  Defendants continued to deny overtime compensation to Plaintiff Reed and those similarly  situated thereafter.     28.  Upon information and belief, although they had a legal obligation to do so, Defendants did  not make, keep, or preserve adequate or accurate records of the time worked by Plaintiffs and  the similarly situated individuals.  29. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, restate and  incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   30.  Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals  working with each of the three UnityPoint Pekin, UnityPoint Proctor and UnityPoint  Methodist Hospitals.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs’ signed consent forms are  attached as Exhibit 1. As this case progresses, it is likely that other individuals will also join  this case as opt-in plaintiffs.   31.  The employees similarly situated are:  FLSA Collective Class: All persons who are, have been, or will be employed by either  Defendant or both Defendants as Case Managers or other similar job positions, and whose  primary job responsibilities were to provide discharge planning or case management  services, at any time from three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the entry  of judgment, and whose compensation classification was identified as ‘exempt’ and/or who  were denied overtime pay at one and one half times their regular hourly rate for any time  worked beyond forty hours in a work week.   32.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Class worked or work in excess of forty (40) hours  during at least one workweek within the applicable statutory period.    34.  Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA within the meaning of 29  U.S.C. § 255(a).   35.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate Plaintiffs and the  similarly situated individuals. Accordingly, notice should be sent to the FLSA Collective  Class members. There are other similarly situated current and former employees of  Defendants who have suffered from Defendants’ practice of denying overtime pay and who  would benefit from the issuance of court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the  opportunity to join. Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and are  readily identifiable through Defendants’ records.  36. Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Class restate and incorporate by reference the above  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   37. The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, requires employers to pay non-exempt employees one and one- half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) hours per workweek.   39.  Defendants’ actions, policies, and practices described above violate the FLSA’s overtime  requirement by regularly and repeatedly failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the FLSA  Collective Class the required overtime pay.   40.  As the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the FLSA  Collective Class have suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of income and other  damages.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Class are entitled to liquidated damages,  attorneys’ fees, and costs incurred in connection with this claim.   41.  By failing to accurately record, report, and/or preserve records of hours worked by Plaintiffs  and the FLSA Collective Class, Defendants have failed to make, keep, and preserve records  with respect to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages, hours, and other  conditions and practice of employment, in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.   42.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA within the  meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for the fact,  that their compensation practices were in violation of these laws.  COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME  (on behalf of Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals)  