118.  Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.  119.  At all relevant times, Defendants have been an employer engaged in interstate  commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce, within the meaning of the FLSA.  120.  Defendants employed Plaintiff and each member of the FLSA Class.   121.  Defendants’ pay policy denied Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class overtime compensation  as required by the FLSA.  122.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class proper overtime violates 29  32.  Lencho Oilfield Services is a Solids Control business.   33.  Lencho Oilfield Services conducts business within the State of Texas and New  Mexico.   34.  Birdwell was paid according to Lencho’s day rate policy.   35.  Defendants’ employees routinely handle goods or materials – such as fuel, tool  bags, generators, lubricants, toolboxes, personal protective equipment, waterproof boots, gloves,  and special fluid monitoring equipment - that have moved in, or were produced for, interstate  commerce.    36.  Defendants are an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, covered by the FLSA,  and subject to the FLSA’s recordkeeping requirements and overtime wage requirements.    37.  In each of the past three (3) years, Defendants’ gross revenue has exceeded  $500,000.     39.  Over the past three years, Defendants employed dozens of individuals—including  Plaintiff as Day Rate Workers across Texas and New Mexico     40.  While the Putative Class Members’ job duties may vary somewhat, these  differences are not relevant for determining their rights to overtime pay.    41.   Defendants pay their Day Rate Workers a day rate for the work they perform.    42.   Plaintiffs’ and the Day Rate Workers’ day rates are readily found in Defendants’  payroll records.    43.   The Day Rate Workers were paid a day rate.    44.  The Day Rate Workers were not paid a salary.    45.   The Day Rate Workers were paid based on the number of days they worked.    46.   If a Day Rate Worker did not work on a certain day, then they were not paid for  that day.    47.   A salary is not the same as a day rate.    48.  Defendants nonetheless paid a day rate without any overtime to certain employees,  including Plaintiff.    49.   It is well-known day rate employees are not exempt from the overtime provisions  of the FLSA and state wage laws, no matter what their job duties are.    50.  Defendants recorded the hours worked by their non-exempt employees, including  Plaintiff’s.    51.   Defendants’ Day Rate Workers are non-exempt employees.    53.  Defendant Lawrence Deculit was also directly responsible for implementing  Lencho’s practice of paying its employees a day rate without overtime.    54.  Lencho and Defendant Deculit had the power to hire and fire Lencho’s employees,  including Plaintiff, and regularly exercised this authority.    55.  Defendant Deculit hired Plaintiff.   56.  Defendant Deculit set the amount of Plaintiff’s pay.   57.  Defendant Deculit set up Lencho’s day rate pay plan.   58.  Defendant Deculit set up Plaintiff’s work schedule.   59.  Defendant Deculit controlled Plaintiff’s job locations.   60.  Defendant Deculit set the employment policies and rules applicable to Plaintiff.   61.  While the precise job duties of the Day Rate Workers may vary somewhat, any  variations do not impact their entitlement to overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a  workweek.   62.   An employer can pay a non-exempt employee on a day rate basis provided the  employee receives overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. 29 C.F.R. § 778.112.   63.  Birdwell worked for Defendants as a Solids Control Technician.   64.  Defendants paid Birdwell according to on a day rate.    65.  Defendants routinely scheduled Birdwell and the other Putative Class Members,  for twelve (12) or more hours each workday.  Defendants scheduled Birdwell and the other Putative  Class Members for 21 days in a row followed by 10 days off before working another 21 days  assignment.    67.  Over the past three (3) years, Defendants employed dozens of individuals –  including Birdwell as Solids Control Technicians.    68.  Defendants paid/pay the Putative Class Members a day rate without overtime.  Defendants’ day rate employees (Solids Control Technicians) are non-exempt employees.    69.  While the precise job duties of the day rate employees may vary somewhat, any  variations do not impact their entitlement to overtime for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in  a workweek.    70.  An employer can pay a non-exempt employee on a day rate basis provided the  employee receives overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek. 29 C.F.R.  § 778.112.   71.  All of Defendants’ Day Rate Workers perform manual labor in support of  Defendants’ solid control business.   72.  All of Defendants’ Day Rate Workers are entitled to overtime pay.   73.  None of Defendants’ Day Rate Workers received/receive overtime pay.   74.  Defendants know their Day Rate Workers work more than forty (40) hours in a  workweek.    75.  Defendants know their Day Rate Workers are not exempt from the overtime  provisions of the FLSA.   77.  Birdwell brings this claim under Section 216(b) of the FLSA as a collective action.   78.  The same policy that caused Birdwell to be denied his overtime pay caused  Defendants’ other Day Rate Workers to be denied their overtime pay.    79.  While the precise job duties performed by the Putative Class Members might vary  somewhat, these differences don’t matter for the purposes of determining their entitlement to  overtime.   80.  Nor do any differences in job duties matter for determining whether Defendants’  policy of not paying Day Rate Workers overtime is legal.   81.  The members of the FLSA Collective are all entitled to overtime for all hours  worked over forty (40) in a workweek consistent with the overtime requirements of the FLSA.   82.  Because Defendants uniformly failed to pay overtime to all Day Rate Workers,  Birdwell and the Putative Class Members are similarly situated within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b).   83.  Upon information and belief, Defendants employed numerous day rate employees  like Birdwell during the past three (3) years.   84.  Nearly all of the questions related to Birdwell and the FLSA Collective can be  answered on a collective basis.   85.  Defendants’ practice of paying day rates and not paying members of the FLSA  Collective overtime is based on established companywide policies.   87.  The most important questions presented in this case can be resolved on a collective- wide basis.   88.  Absent a collective action, many members of the FLSA Collective likely will not  obtain redress of their injuries and Defendants will retain the proceeds of its violations of the 