20.  Regardless of their specific job title, certification, or licensure, Named Plaintiff and  similarly situated healthcare employees were hourly or non-exempt employees, and as such, were  required to be paid overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.    21.  Defendant has numerous pay policies that result in Named Plaintiff and other  similarly situated healthcare employees not being paid for all hours worked, including overtime.   A. Pre-Shift Job Duties   22.  Defendant requires Named Plaintiff and similarly situated healthcare employees to  engage in work duties that are integral and indispensable to their job duties prior to clocking in.    23.  Named Plaintiff and similarly situated nurses regularly arrive 15-30 minutes or  more before the start of their regularly scheduled shift in order to turn on their own computer, boot  up the necessary software, and clock in by the start of their scheduled shift. Named Plaintiff and  similarly situated healthcare employees were required to clock in at their own computer, so it was  necessary they arrive before the start of their scheduled shift to engage in this process.    24.  Further, Named Plaintiff and similarly situated healthcare employees used their  computers to perform primary job duties, so turning on and booting up the computers were integral  and indispensable to their principal job activities.    26.  Although they begin working upon their arrival well before the scheduled start of  their shifts, Named Plaintiff and similarly situated healthcare employees were not permitted to  clock in to work more than four (4) minutes prior to the start of their scheduled shift.2 Thus, all of  their pre-shift job duties described above were conducted off-the-clock and Defendant did not pay  them for this time worked.   B. Meal Deduction    27.  Defendant has a companywide policy of requiring healthcare employees to clock  out of work for a daily 60 minute meal break, even if healthcare employees were unable to take a  meal break, meal breaks were only partially taken, or meal breaks were interrupted with job duties.      28.  Named Plaintiff and similarly situated healthcare employees regularly do not take  a full, uninterrupted 60-minute meal break.    30.  Named Plaintiff and similarly situated healthcare employees were expected to  answer the phone during their meal break if a provider called, and they were reprimanded by their  manager for not answering a provider’s call while they were on their meal break.    31.  Further, in order to avoid paying overtime, Defendant at times instructed Named  Plaintiff and similarly situated healthcare employees to take an extended meal break off the clock.  However, Named Plaintiff and similarly situated healthcare employees still assisted co-workers  and answered managers’ and co-workers’ questions. Defendant also still conducted “lunch  meetings” with Named Plaintiff and similarly situated healthcare employees even though  Defendant instructed them to take an extended meal break off the clock to avoid overtime.   C. Defendant’s Pay Policies and/or Practices Resulted in Unpaid Overtime   32.  As a result of Defendant’s companywide pay policies and/or practices described  herein, Defendant knew or had reason to know it was not compensating Named Plaintiff and other  similarly situated healthcare employees for all hours worked.     33.  Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated healthcare employees regularly  worked more than 40 hours per week, but they were not compensated for all overtime pay because  of Defendant’s policies or practices described herein.    35.  During relevant times, Defendant suffered or permitted Named Plaintiff and those  similarly situated healthcare employees to work more than forty (40) hours per workweek, while  not compensating them for all such hours worked over forty (40) at a rate of at least one and one- half times their regular rate of pay as a result of Defendant’s company-wide policies or practices  described above that affect Named Plaintiff and all other similarly situated healthcare employees.   36.  Upon information and belief, Defendant, at all times relevant hereto, was fully  aware of the fact that it was legally required to comply with federal and state wage and hour laws.   37.  During relevant times, Defendant had knowledge of and acted willfully regarding  its conduct described herein.   38.  Defendant is in possession and control of necessary documents and information  from which Named Plaintiff would be able to calculate damages and/or it otherwise failed to keep  such records.  IV.  39.  Named Plaintiff brings her FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) as a  representative action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated healthcare employees of  the opt-in class. The FLSA collective consists of the following:  All current and former hourly, non-exempt healthcare  employees of Defendant who were scheduled to work 40 or  more hours in any workweek during the three years preceding  the date of the filing of this Complaint and continuing through  the final disposition of this case (“FLSA Collective” or “FLSA  Collective Members”).   41.  During some or all of the last three years, Defendant did not compensate Named  Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective Members for time spent performing substantial duties  for Defendant’s benefit.   V.  42.  Named Plaintiff brings her Ohio Wage Act claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 as  a class action on behalf of herself and all other members of the following class:   All current and former hourly, non-exempt healthcare employees of  Defendant who were scheduled to work 40 or more hours in any  workweek during the two years preceding the date of the filing of  this Complaint and continuing through the final disposition of this  case (“Ohio Rule 23 Class” or “Ohio Rule 23 Class Members”).   43.  The Ohio Rule 23 Class includes all current or former hourly, non-exempt  healthcare employees employed by Defendant throughout the State of Ohio as defined above.    44.  The Ohio Rule 23 Class, as defined above, is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.   45.  Named Plaintiff is a member of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and her claim for unpaid  wages is typical of the claims of other members of the Rule 23 Class.    46.  Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Rule 23 Class and the  interests of all members of the Rule 23 Class.   47.  Named Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic to or in conflict with those  interests of the Rule 23 Class that he has undertaken to represent.    48.  Named Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced class action counsel who  can ably represent the interests of the entire Ohio Rule 23 Class.    50.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because individual  actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish  incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant with respect to its non-exempt employees.   51.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) as Defendant acted  or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Ohio Rule 23 Class, making appropriate  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class as a  whole.   52.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of  law and facts common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class predominate over questions affecting individual  members of the Ohio Rule 23 Class and because a class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.    53.  Questions of law and fact that are common to the Ohio Rule 23 Class include, but  are not limited to: (a) whether Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act by failing to pay the Ohio  Rule 23 Class for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week because of the pay policies and  practices described herein; (b) whether Defendant kept accurate records of the amount of time the  Ohio Rule 23 Class was working each day; (c) whether Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Wage  Act were knowing and willful; (d) what amount of unpaid and/or withheld compensation,  including overtime compensation, is due to Named Plaintiff and other members of the Ohio Rule  23 Class on account of Defendant’s violations of the Ohio Acts; and (e) what amount of  prejudgment interest is due to Ohio Rule 23 Class members on the overtime or other compensation  which was withheld or not paid to them.    55.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   56.  This claim is brought as part of a collective action by Named Plaintiff on behalf of  herself and the FLSA Collective.    57.  The FLSA requires that employees receive overtime compensation for hours  worked in excess of forty (40) per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   58.  During the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, Defendant employed  the Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members.   59.  Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members were paid on an hourly basis  and worked in non-exempt positions.   60.  Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members regularly worked in excess of  40 hours in workweeks.   62.  Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members were not exempt from  receiving FLSA overtime benefits.   63.  Defendant knew or should have known of the overtime payment requirements of  the FLSA. Despite such knowledge, Defendant willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime  compensation to which Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members are entitled.   64.  The exact total amount of compensation, including overtime compensation, that  Defendant has failed to pay Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members is unknown at this  time, as many of the records necessary to make such precise calculations are in the possession of  Defendant or were not kept by Defendant.   65.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Named Plaintiff and the  FLSA Collective Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. Named Plaintiff seeks  unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all  other remedies available, on behalf of herself and the FLSA Collective Members.   66.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   67.  This claim is brought under Ohio Law.    69.  The Ohio Wage Act requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not  less than one and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked  over forty (40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the  exemptions of section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.”  See O.R.C.  § 4111.03(A); see also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   70.  Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members worked in excess of the  maximum weekly hours permitted under O.R.C. § 4111.03, but were not paid overtime wages for  all of such time spent working.   71.  Defendant’s  companywide  policies  and/or  practices  described  herein  impermissibly reduced Named Plaintiff’s and Rule 23 Class Members' compensable hours worked  and resulted in unpaid overtime.   72.  Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were not exempt from the  wage protections of the Ohio Wage Act.   73.  Defendant’s repeated and knowing failures to pay overtime wages to Named  Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class members were violations of R.C. §4111.03, and as such,  Defendant willfully withheld and failed to pay the overtime compensation to which Named  Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were entitled.    74.  For Defendant’s violations of R.C. §4111.03, by which Named Plaintiff and the  Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages, Named Plaintiff seeks  unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all  other remedies available, on behalf of herself and the Rule 23 Class Members.  76.  Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were employed by  Defendant.   77.  During all relevant times, Defendant was an entity covered by the OPPA and Named  Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members have been employed by Defendant within the  meaning of the OPPA.   78.  The OPPA requires Defendant to timely pay Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule  23 Class Members all wages, including unpaid overtime, in accordance with O.R.C. § 4113.15(A).   79.  During relevant times, Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were  not paid all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay  within thirty (30) days of performing the work. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(B).   80.  Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members unpaid wages remain unpaid  for more than thirty (30) days beyond their regularly scheduled payday.   81.  In violating the OPPA, Defendant acted willfully, without a good faith basis, and  with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.  82.  All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.   83.  The Ohio Wage Act requires employers to maintain and preserve payroll or  other records containing, among other things, the hours worked each workday, and the total  hours worked each workweek. See O.R.C. § 4111.08. See also, 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2 et seq.   85.  Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members were covered employees  entitled to the protection of the Ohio Wage Act.   86.  During times material to this complaint, Defendant violated the Ohio Wage Act  with respect to Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Rule 23 Class Members by failing to properly  maintain accurate records of all hours Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members worked  each workday and within each workweek.   87.  In violating the Ohio Wage Act, Defendant acted willfully and with reckless  disregard of clearly applicable Ohio Wage Act provisions.  FLSA – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME   R.C. 4111.03 — RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME   R.C. 4113.15 — RULE 23 CLASS ACTION FOR OPPA VIOLATION   RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO WAGE ACT  