16.  Applied Consultants employs inspectors, such as Plaintiff, who perform a variety  of inspection services on oil and gas pipelines for energy, public utility and pipeline companies  in this judicial district and throughout the United States.   18.  Applied Consultants charges its inspectors’ services out to Applied Consultants’  customers on a per project basis, including per diem charges for the inspectors, their mileage and  other reimbursement items.   19.  From April 2013 through August 2013, Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt  Welding Inspector with Applied Consultants, performing and reviewing welding inspections on  gas pipelines.   20.  Applied Consultants employed Plaintiff to inspect welding on a pipeline in and  around Western Pennsylvania that stretched into West Virginia.   21.  Plaintiff reviewed and aided colleagues in performing routine inspections of  newly-laid pipes.  Plaintiff observed other members of the Classes performing the same or  substantially similar job duties.   22.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Class members are blue collar workers who are primarily  engaged in manual labor duties.   23.  Plaintiff’s work required the utilization of techniques and procedure obtained  primarily from industry manuals, standards and codes.  See 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(g).  Plaintiff  observed other members of the Classes utilizing similar techniques and procedures in the  performance of their jobs.   24.  Plaintiff worked within the closely prescribed limits provided by Applied  Consultants.  See 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(g).  Plaintiff observed other members of the Classes  working in the same or substantially similar manner.   25.  Applied Consultants has a policy or practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and  the Classes for all overtime hours worked.   27.  Applied Consultants does not maintain accurate records of the hours that Plaintiff  and the Classes worked each workday and the total number of hours worked each workweek as  required by the FLSA.  See 29 C.F.R. § 516.2(a)(7).   28.  Plaintiff routinely worked up to seven (7) days per week and more than ten (10)  hours per day.  Plaintiff observed that the members of the Classes routinely worked similar  schedules.   29.  Applied Consultants did not pay Plaintiff and the Classes any compensation for  hours worked over forty (40) per workweek.   30.  In 2011, prior to the start of the relevant time period in this case, the United States  Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a similar daily rate compensation scheme by an  oilfield services company was not only unlawful, but constituted a willful violation of the FLSA.   See Mumby v. Pure Energy Services (USA), Inc., 636 F.3d 1266, 1268 (10th Cir. 2011).  Since  Mumby, many oil and gas service companies have reclassified their daily rate workers to come  into compliance with the FLSA.  Applied Consultants, however, has not done so.    31.  As a subsidiary of Applied-Cleveland Holdings, Inc., which services the oil and  gas industry throughout the United States, there is no question that Applied Consultants has  access to human resource expertise and legal counsel who can advise Applied Consultants on its  FLSA compliance obligations.   33.  Moreover, during the entire relevant time period, Applied Consultants was aware  that the Classes were not properly compensated under the FLSA and Pennsylvania state law,  because the Class members’ timesheets clearly demonstrate that they were routinely working  more than forty (40) hours per week but were not receiving overtime compensation.   34.  Furthermore, Applied Consultants failed to properly track, monitor or record the  actual number of hours per day that the FLSA Class members worked, as required by the FLSA.   See 29 U.S.C.A. § 211(c); 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.5(a), 516.6(a)(1), 516.2(c) (requiring employers to  maintain payroll records for three years and time sheets for two years, including the exact  number of hours worked each day and each week).  35.  Plaintiff brings this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a collective action  on behalf of the FLSA Class defined above.   36.  Plaintiff desires to pursue his FLSA claim on behalf of any individuals who opt-in  to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   37.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Class are “similarly situated,” as that term is used in 29  U.S.C. § 216(b), because, inter alia, all such individuals worked pursuant to Applied  Consultants’ previously described common pay practices and, as a result of such practices, were  not paid the full and legally mandated overtime premium for hours worked over forty (40) during  the workweek.  Resolution of this action requires inquiry into common facts, including, inter  alia, Applied Consultants’ common compensation, timekeeping and payroll practices.   39.  The similarly situated employees are known to Applied Consultants, are readily  identifiable, and may be located through Applied Consultants’ records and the records of any  payroll companies that Applied Consultants utilizes.  Applied Consultants employs many FLSA  Class Members throughout the United States.  These similarly situated employees may be readily  notified of this action through direct U.S. mail and/or other appropriate means, and allowed to  opt into it pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of collectively adjudicating their  claims for overtime compensation, liquidated damages (or, alternatively, interest), and attorneys’  fees and costs under the FLSA.  40.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23 on  behalf of himself and the Pennsylvania Class defined above.   41.  The members of the Pennsylvania Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.  Upon information and belief, there are more than forty (40) members  of the Pennsylvania Class.   42.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  Pennsylvania Class because there is no conflict between the claims of Plaintiff and those of the  Pennsylvania Class, and Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Pennsylvania Class.   Plaintiff’s counsel are competent and experienced in litigating class actions and other complex  litigation matters, including wage and hour cases like this one.   44.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Pennsylvania Class in the  following ways, without limitation:  (a) Plaintiff is a member of the Pennsylvania Class; (b)  Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same policies, practices and course of conduct that form the  basis of the claims of the Pennsylvania Class; (c) Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same legal  and remedial theories as those of the Pennsylvania Class and involve similar factual  circumstances; (d) there are no conflicts between the interests of Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania  Class members; and (e) the injuries suffered by Plaintiff are similar to the injuries suffered by the  Pennsylvania Class members.   45.  Class certification is appropriate under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) because questions  of law and fact common to the Pennsylvania Class predominate over any questions affecting  only individual Class members.   47.  A class action is superior to other available methods for adjudication of this  controversy because joinder of all members is impractical.  Further, the amounts at stake for  many of the Pennsylvania Class members, while substantial, are not great enough to enable them  to maintain separate suits against Applied Consultants.   48.  Without a class action, Applied Consultants will retain the benefit of its  wrongdoing, which will result in further damages to Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania Class.   Plaintiff envisions no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.  49.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   50.  The FLSA requires that covered employees be compensated for all hours worked  in excess of forty (40) hours per week at a rate not less than one and one-half (1 ½) times the  regular rate at which he is employed.  See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   51.  The FLSA provides that, if an employee is paid a flat sum for a day’s work or for  doing a particular job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for services, the  employee is entitled to extra half-time pay at his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of  forty (40) in the workweek.  See 29 C.F.R. § 778.112.   52.  Applied Consultants’ compensation scheme applicable to Plaintiff and the FLSA  Class failed to comply with either 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) or 29 C.F.R. § 778.112.   54.  During all relevant times, Plaintiff and the FLSA Class were covered employees  entitled to the above-described FLSA protections.   55.  In violating the FLSA, Applied Consultants acted willfully and with reckless  disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions.  56.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   57.  The Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 (“PMWA”) requires that covered  employees be compensated for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week at a rate  not less than one and one-half (1 ½) times the regular rate at which he is employed.  See 43 P.S.  § 333.104(c) and 34 PA. CODE § 231.41.   58.  The PMWA provides that, if an employee is paid a flat sum for a day’s work, and  if he receives no other form of compensation for services, the employee is entitled to extra half- time pay at his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in the workweek.  See 34  PA. CODE § 231.43(b).   59.  Applied Consultants is subject to the overtime requirements of the PMWA  because Applied Consultants is an employer under 43 P.S. § 333.103(g).   60.  During all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania Class were covered  employees entitled to the above-described PMWA’s protections.  See 43 P.S. § 333.103(h).   61.  Applied Consultants’ compensation scheme that is applicable to Plaintiff and the  Pennsylvania Class failed to comply with either 43 P.S. § 333.104(c) or 34 PA. CODE §  231.43(b).   65.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   66.  Applied Consultants has received and benefited from the uncompensated labors of  Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania Class, such that to retain said benefit without compensation would  be inequitable and rise to the level of unjust enrichment.   67.  At all relevant times hereto, Applied Consultants devised and implemented a plan  to increase its earnings and profits by fostering a scheme of securing work from Plaintiff and the  Pennsylvania Class without paying overtime compensation for all hours worked.   68.  Contrary to all good faith and fair dealing, Applied Consultants induced Plaintiff  and the Pennsylvania Class to perform work while failing to pay overtime compensation for all  hours worked as required by law.   70.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania Class are entitled to judgment in an  amount equal to the benefits unjustly retained by Applied Consultants.  Unjust Enrichment  (On Behalf of the Pennsylvania Class)   Violation of the FLSA  (On Behalf of the FLSA Class)   Violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act   (On Behalf of the Pennsylvania Class)  