10. Defendant has been Plaintiff and Putative Class’ “employer” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.  § 203(d) and § 203(r) at all times material to this action.   11. At times material to this action, Plaintiff and Putative Class have been “employees” of  Defendants as defined by Section 203(e)(1) of the FLSA, and performed work for Defendant  within the territory of the United States, within the three (3) years preceding the filing of this  collective action.   12. At all times material to this action, Defendants have been an enterprise engaged in commerce  as defined by section 203(s)(1) of the FLSA, with annual revenue in excess of $500,000.00.  Defendants operate across several states. Plaintiff and Putative Class has engaged in interstate  commerce as Defendant’s employees during the applicable statutory period.   13. Plaintiff estimates that at least eighteen (18) other individuals also worked for Defendants  during the time that Plaintiff worked there and that these individuals were subject to the same  impermissible practices more fully described below.   14. Plaintiff and the putative class primarily performed manual labor as Defendants’ employees.    15. Plaintiff was paid approximately $20.00 per hour during the statutory period.   16. The putative class was paid $15.00 to $20.00 per hour.   17. Plaintiff and the putative class were provided the equipment necessary to complete the tasks  Defendants assigned them.  4   18. Plaintiff did not have the autonomy to choose which tasks to complete or the manner of  completion.  Defendants directed and controlled Plaintiff’s activities and work load.   19. Plaintiff invested no money in facilities or equipment beyond what is expected of a normal  employee of Defendant.   20. Plaintiff and the putative class did not negotiate his/their manner or rate of pay with Defendant.   21. Plaintiff and the putative class were not independent contractors for the purposes of the FLSA  and were therefore entitled to overtime at 1.5 times their base rate of pay for all compensable  time worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.   22. Plaintiff and the putative class generally worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.   23. Plaintiff and the putative class, as DDT Concrete employees, would arrive at DDT Concrete’s  place of business and handle necessary tasks for the day’s work before going to the job site.   24. Plaintiff and the putative class were not paid for this work and instead were only paid for time  worked at the actual job site.    25. Plaintiff estimates that Defendants’ failure to record all of the hours he was engaged in  compensable work resulted in one (1) to (2) hours of unpaid wages per day, which would have  been compensated at an overtime rate had they been properly recorded and classified.    26. Plaintiff and the putative class are not able to provide a full assessment of the hours they  worked because documents necessary to provide a full assessment are in the possession of the  Defendant and third parties. Plaintiff and the members of the putative class are able to provide  a reasonable estimate of the hours they worked off the clock for Defendant during the statutory  period in the absence of such documents.  5   27. Defendants were unjustly enriched by their common plan, policy, and practice of failing to pay  its non-exempt employees’ overtime, thereby enjoying ill-gained profits at the expense of  Plaintiff and the putative class. Defendants also enjoyed lower payroll taxes thereby.  28. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   29. Plaintiff brings this case as a collective action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated  individuals pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated  damages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other damages owed.   30. The proposed collective class of similarly situated persons, also referred to in this Complaint  as the “Putative Class” is defined as:  All current and former individuals worked for Defendants as hourly-paid  construction workers during the previous three (3) years.   31. Plaintiff seeks to pursue unpaid overtime wage claims against Defendant on behalf of himself  s and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees.   32. Plaintiff and the putative class are “similarly situated” for the purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)  because, inter alia, Defendants employed a common pay scheme whereby Defendants’ non- exempt employees were paid in a matter impermissible under the FLSA, and were denied any  overtime pay thereby.   33. This action is properly maintained as a collective action because Plaintiff is similarly situated  to the members of the putative class with respect to Defendants’ payroll policies, which  universally denied Plaintiffs and members of the putative class all overtime compensation.   34. The collective action mechanism is superior to other available methods for a fair an efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally  applicable to class members. The prosecution of separate actions could create a risk of  6  inconsistent and varying adjudications, place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the  courts and/or substantially impair the ability of class members to protect their interests.   35. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as his interests are in  complete alignment with those of class members.   36. Counsel for Plaintiff will adequately protect his interests as well as the interests of all putative  class members.   37. Plaintiff estimates that the putative class consists of (at least) approximately eighteen (18)  individuals. The precise number of putative class can be easily ascertained by examining  Defendants’ payroll, scheduling, time keeping, personnel and other work-related records and  documents.  Given the composition and size of the class, members of the class may be informed  of the pendency of this action directly via U.S. mail, e-mail, and by posing notice at  Defendants’ place of business/work sites.  8. The term “putative class” refers to all hourly-paid construction workers who worked for DDT  Concrete during the previous three (3) years.   9. Defendant erroneously classified Plaintiff and the putative class as “independent contractors”  exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.   