27.  Performance provides transportation and logistics services to the oil and gas industry.   28.  In order to create the goods, and provide the services, it markets to its customers,  Performance employs personnel like Sonia and the Putative Class Members.   29.  These workers carry out the hands-on, day-to-day production work of Performance.   30.  Performance paid Sonia and the Putative Class Members the same sum for each hour  worked, regardless of the number of hours that they worked that day (or in that workweek) and failed to  provide them with overtime pay for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.   31.  For example, Sonia worked for Performance from approximately October 14, 2017 until  April 30, 2018 as a Field Coordinator and Trainer.    32.  Specifically, Sonia primarily worked for Performance in Bossier City, Louisiana and briefly  in Wilson, North Dakota.   33.  Sonia was paid on an hourly basis.     34.  Sonia was not paid on a salary basis.   36.  Performance paid Sonia $25-$35 for each hour worked.   37.  Performance typically scheduled Sonia to work 14.5-hour shifts, for as many as 7 days a  week.     38.  Throughout his entire employment, Sonia regularly worked well in excess of 40 hours in  a workweek.   39.  But Performance did not pay Sonia overtime.   40.  For example, for the pay period beginning on October 16, 2017 and ending on October  31, 2017, Sonia worked for 115.5 hours, but Performance paid him for all of these hours, including those  in excess of 40, at the same hourly rate ($25).   41.  Similarly, for the pay period beginning on December 16, 2017 and ending on December  31, 2017, Sonia worked for 101.5 hours, but Performance paid him for all of these hours, including those  in excess of 40, at the same hourly rate ($25).   42.  The work Sonia performed was an essential part of producing Performance’s core  products and/or services.   44.  Sonia did not make any substantial investment in order to perform the work Performance  required of him.    45.  Performance determined Sonia’s opportunity for profit and loss.    46.  Sonia’s earning opportunity was based on the number of days Performance scheduled him  to work.   47.  Sonia was not required to possess any unique or specialized skillset (other than that  maintained by all other individuals working in the same job position) to perform their job duties.     48.  Sonia was not employed by Performance on a project-by-project basis, but rather on a  consistent basis.   49.  While Sonia was classified as an independent contractor, he was regularly on call for  Performance and was expected to drop everything and work whenever needed.   50.  Performance controlled all the significant or meaningful aspects of the job duties  performed by Sonia.   51.  Performance controlled the hours and locations Sonia worked, the tools he used, and the  rates of pay he received.   52.  Even when Sonia worked away from Performance’s offices or job sites without the  presence of a direct supervisor, Performance still controlled all aspects of Sonia’s job activities by  enforcing mandatory compliance with Performance’s and/or its client’s policies and procedures.   53.  More often than not, Sonia utilized equipment provided by Performance to perform his  job duties.   54.  Sonia did not provide the essential equipment he worked with on a daily basis.     56.  Sonia did not incur operating expenses like rent, payroll, marketing, and insurance.   57.  Sonia was economically dependent on Performance during his employment.   58.  Performance set Sonia’s rates of pay, his work schedule, and prohibited him (formally or  practically) from working other jobs for other companies while they were working on jobs for  Performance.   59.   Very little skill, training, or initiative, in terms of independent business initiative, was  required of Sonia to perform his job duties.   60.  Indeed, the daily and weekly activities of Sonia and the Putative Class Members were  routine and largely governed by standardized plans, procedures, and checklists created or mandated by  Performance.    61.  Virtually every job function performed by Sonia and the Putative Class Members was pre- determined by Performance and/or its clients, including the tools to use at a job site, the data to compile,  the schedule of work, and related work duties.    62.  Sonia and the Putative Class Members were generally prohibited from varying their job  duties outside of the pre-determined parameters.    63.  Finally, for the purposes of an FLSA overtime claim, the Putative Class Members  performed substantially similar job duties related to coordinating transportation and logistics services for  oil and gas companies.    64.  Sonia performed routine technical job duties that were largely dictated by Performance.   65.  For example, Sonia regularly coordinated sand deliveries to Performance’s clients’ frac  locations.   67.  The Putative Class Members also worked similar hours and were denied overtime as a  result of the same illegal pay practice.    68.  The Putative Class Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week.   69.  Like Sonia, the Putative Class Members were generally scheduled for daily shifts of 14.5  (or more) hours for weeks at a time.    70.  Performance did not pay Sonia on a salary basis.   71.  Performance did not pay the Putative Class Members on a salary basis.   72.  Performance paid the Sonia on an hourly basis.    73.  Performance paid the Putative Class Members on an hourly basis.    74.  Performance failed to pay Sonia overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a  single workweek.    75.  Performance failed to pay the Putative Class Members overtime for hours worked in  excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.    76.  Performance knew, or acted with reckless disregard for whether, Sonia and the Putative  Class Members were misclassified as independent contractors.   77.  Performance classifies other workers who perform substantially similar work, under  similar conditions, as employees.    78.  Performance’s policy of failing to pay Sonia and the Putative Class Members overtime  violates the FLSA because these workers are, for the purposes of the FLSA, employees.   80.  Because Sonia and the Putative Class Members were misclassified as independent  contractors by Performance, they should receive overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in  each workweek.  85.  The illegal pay practices Performance imposed on Sonia were likewise imposed on the  Putative Class Members.    87.  Numerous other individuals who worked with Sonia were classified as independent  contractors, paid in the same manner, performed similar work, and were not properly compensated for  all hours worked as required by state and federal wage laws.    88.  Based on his experiences and tenure with Performance, Sonia is aware that Performance’s  illegal practices were imposed on other Putative Class Members.     89.  The Putative Class Members were improperly classified as independent contractors and  not paid overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.   90.  Performance’s failure to pay overtime at the rates required by state and/or federal law  result from generally applicable, systematic policies, and practices which are not dependent on the personal  circumstances of the Putative Class Members.    91.  Sonia’s experiences are therefore typical of the experiences of the Putative Class Members.   92.  The specific job titles or precise job locations of the various members of the Putative Class  Members do not prevent class or collective treatment.     93.  Sonia has no interests contrary to, or in conflict with, the Putative Class Members.   94.  Like each Putative Class Member, Sonia has an interest in obtaining the unpaid overtime  wages owed under state and/or federal law.   95.  A class and collective action, such as the instant one, is superior to other available means  for fair and efficient adjudication of the lawsuit.    96.  Absent a class and collective action, many members of the Putative Class Members will  not obtain redress of their injuries and Performance will reap the unjust benefits of violating the FLSA  and applicable state labor law.   98.  Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among  the claims of the Putative Class Members and provide for judicial consistency.   99.  The questions of law and fact common to each of the Putative Class Members  predominate over any questions affecting solely the individual members. Among the common questions  of law and fact are:  a.  Whether Performance employed the members of the Class within the meaning of  the applicable state and federal statutes, including the FLSA;  b.  Whether the Putative Class Members were improperly misclassified as  independent contractors;  c.  Whether Performance’s decision to classify the members of the Class as  independent contractors was made in good faith;   d.  Whether Performance’s decision to not pay time and a half for overtime to the  members of the Class was made in good faith;   e.  Whether Performance’s violation of the FLSA was willful; and   f.  Whether Performance’s illegal pay practices were applied to the Putative Class  Members.  100.  Sonia and the Putative Class Members sustained damages arising out of Performance’s  illegal and uniform employment policy.   101.  Sonia knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this litigation  that would preclude its ability to go forward as a collective or class action.  102.  Although the issue of damages may be somewhat individual in character, there is no  detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts. Therefore, this issue does not preclude collective  and class action treatment. 