50.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety.   51.  Farm Bureau regularly permitted and required the Named Plaintiffs and members of  the putative class to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.   52.  Upon information and belief, Farm Bureau knew that the Named Plaintiffs and all  similarly situated individuals performed work that required overtime pay.  10   53.  Farm Bureau has therefore operated under a scheme to deprive these misclassified  agents of overtime compensation by failing to properly compensate them for all time worked.   54.  Farm Bureau's conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, was willful and has caused  significant damage to the Named Plaintiffs and all similarly situated individuals.   55.  Count I of this Complaint for violations of the FLSA may be brought and maintained  as an "opt-in" class action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) because the claims of the Named  Plaintiffs are similar to the claims of current and former misclassified agents who work and/or  have worked for Farm Bureau.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  class.  Therefore, the Named Plaintiffs should be permitted to bring this action as a class action  and on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated individuals pursuant to the "opt-in"  provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S. C. § 216(b).   56.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs has conducted significant investigation as to potential  claims and parties in this case.   57.  Prosecuting this case as a class action for similarly situated employees who have  been unlawfully and/or wrongfully denied overtime wages will promote judicial efficiency and  will best protect the interests of the class members.   58.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs is knowledgeable and experienced in the field of  employment law and can and will fairly and competently represent the interest of all class  members.   59.  Counsel for the Plaintiff has and will commit the human and financial resources  necessary to represent the class.   60.  Farm Bureau is liable under the FLSA for failing to keep proper records of hours  worked as mandated by the FLSA and for failing to properly compensate the Named Plaintiffs  11  and all similarly situated individuals, and notice of this lawsuit should be sent to all similarly  situated individuals.  Those similarly situated individuals are known to Farm Bureau and are  readily identifiable through Farm Bureau's records.  61.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety.   62.  The Named Plaintiffs and all similarly situated misclassified agents have all been  victimized by Farm Bureau's common policy and plan to violate their rights under the FSLA by  denying them proper overtime compensation.   63.  Farm Bureau operates a business enterprise of selling and servicing insurance and  insurance-related products and services including auto insurance, homeowner's insurance,  renter's insurance, manufactured home insurance, farm & ranch insurance, property insurance,  health insurance and life insurance.     64.  The primary job duties of the Named Plaintiffs and the similarly situated  misclassified agents were selling and servicing Farm Bureau's insurance services and products.   65.  The services provided by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated insurance agents were  integrated into Farm Bureau's business operation of selling and servicing insurance products,  which is inconsistent with a bona fide independent-contractor classification.   66.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated sold and serviced policies exclusively from  Farm Bureau and were prohibited from selling and servicing insurance for other companies  while working for Farm Bureau.   67.  Alternatively, Farm Bureau limited and controlled the policies, products and services  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated could sell, and only a select group of agents statewide  were allowed to write Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance policies.  12   68.  Farm Bureau issued business cards to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated with its  name and logo which identified Plaintiffs and others similarly situated as insurance agents for  Farm Bureau.  Alternatively, Farm Bureau required Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to  acquire business cards with its name and logo which identified Plaintiffs and others similarly  situated as insurance agents for Farm Bureau.   69.  The work of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated was/is closely and directly  supervised, managed and/or controlled by other Farm Bureau employees.   70.  Farm Bureau provided Plaintiffs and others similarly situated with email addresses.   71.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required or encouraged to use a signature  that identified them as Farm Bureau agents.   72.  Farm Bureau alone set the price of insurance policies sold by Plaintiffs and others  similarly situated.   73.  Farm Bureau controlled the substantive content of all signage, advertising, marketing  and/or promotions done on its behalf.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated who wished to  advertise and/or market were required to have their advertisements and/or marketing materials  approved by Farm Bureau.  They were required to have their signage approved by Farm Bureau.   They were also required to pay into an agent's fund for office expenses, advertising and  marketing and to turn in receipts to Agency Managers.   74.  Farm Bureau controlled the placement of policies and could remove a policy from  one agent and give it to another, thereby assigning the commission from the first agent and  giving it to the second.  Similarly, Farm Bureau's Agency Managers held and retained the right  to recode any account of any agent at any time without agent approval or authorization.  13   75.  Farm Bureau required the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to attend meetings  and training sessions.   76.  Farm Bureau's investment in infrastructure designed to underwrite, administer and  pay claims of the insurance products sold by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated far exceeded  any investment by the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated.   77.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated worked for Farm Bureau for years and even  decades.   78.  Plaintiffs and other misclassified agents similarly situated frequently and routinely  worked over 40 hours per week.    79.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are and/or were nonexempt Farm Bureau  employees.   80.  Farm Bureau failed to make payroll tax or other withholdings from monies paid to  Plaintiffs and other similarly situated insurance agents.   81.  Farm Bureau illegally and/or wrongfully classified their insurance agents, including  the Named Plaintiffs, as independent contractors; however, they were actually employees as that  term is defined by the FSLA and relevant case law.   82.  Farm Bureau controlled the hiring, firing, assignment or reassignment, and  commission rates of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated misclassified insurance agents.  It  prohibited Plaintiffs and other similarly situated agents from assigning any of their rights to third  parties.   83.  Farm Bureau set and/or closely monitored and effectively controlled the work and  vacation schedules for Plaintiffs and other similarly situated misclassified insurance agents.  It  required its agents to submit to quarterly evaluations with Agency Managers where they were  14  evaluated on sales performance, punctuality, appearance, community involvement, product  knowledge, and attitude.     84.  Farm Bureau retained the right to discipline insurance agents for not following its  company rules.   85.  Farm Bureau tracked the days and time its insurance agents worked.  It set and/or  controlled agent work hours and/or required its agents to sign out when leaving their offices.   86.  Farm Bureau instructed its insurance agents regarding when, where and how they  were to perform their work.  It required its agents to conduct a certain number of reviews per  year.   87.  Farm Bureau, the Named Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated contemplated that  the employment relationship between Farm Bureau and its insurance agents would be for a long  and indefinite time period.   88.  Farm Bureau determined the location of the branch offices from which agents  worked.   89.  Farm Bureau provided the physical facilities and requirements of the work and  regulates behavior in the facilities.   90.  Farm Bureau customers made payments directly to Farm Bureau for purchased  services and products.  They did not pay Plaintiffs or others similarly situated for the services  and products they offered.   91.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to sign non-complete  agreements.   92.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to meet company quotas set by  State Sales Managers, District Sales Managers, and/or Agency Managers.  15   93.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were treated as "at will" employees.   94.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to adhere to business ethics and  codes of conduct set by Farm Bureau.   95.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to taking continuing education  courses on business ethics through a company-based education system.   96.  Farm Bureau owned and/or maintained control of the books of business of policy  holders rather than Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Farm Bureau insurance agents.  It  provided agents with potential customers to contact and maintained control over all information  related to clients and/or policy holders.     97.  Farm Bureau set and controlled the dress code for its agents.   98.  Farm Bureau required Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to attend mandated  meetings (including weekly meetings, district meetings, and state meetings) and to prepare  mandated production reports and business plans.   99.  Farm Bureau retained the right to unilaterally fire its insurance agents without their  consent, authorization or approval.  100.  Farm Bureau provided and required Plaintiffs and its other agents to use the  computer and software components it provided.  101.  Farm Bureau dictated, monitored and/or controlled agent computer usage.  For  example, it monitored website usage and retained and exercised the right to block websites at its  sole discretion.  It monitored and controlled storage of information, deletions, search histories,  and email correspondence.  102.  Farm Bureau set, imposed and required Plaintiffs and other similarly situated agents  to comply with its document retention requirements.  16  103.  Farm Bureau set and controlled production requirements for its agents.  104.  Plaintiffs and other similarly situated agents were prohibited from writing property  and casualty insurance across county lines without prior approval from Farm Bureau.  105.  Farm Bureau discouraged its agents from incorporating.    106.  Farm Bureau required Plaintiffs and other similarly situated agents to sell and  collect Farm Bureau Federation Memberships to customers as a prerequisite to selling them  insurance products and services.  107.  Farm Bureau required Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to call customers and  collect past due federation memberships.  108.  Farm Bureau required some or all of its agents to pay payroll into an account owned  by its Agency Managers.  109.  Farm Bureau's Agency Managers required some or all of the Farm Bureau agents to  give raises to and pay additional payroll expenses for their secretaries.  110.  Farm Bureau required its agents to pay into an account for postage and paper.  Each  agent was required to pay the same amount regardless of the number of clients each agent had or  the book of business each agent wrote.  111.  Farm Bureau misclassified Plaintiffs and other similarly situated insurance agents  as independent contractors to avoid the obligation to pay them pursuant to the FLSA.  112.  Farm Bureau's mischaracterization of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated  insurance agents as independent contractors, the concealment or non-disclosure of the true nature  of the relationship between Farm Bureau and the agents, and the attendant deprivation of  substantial rights and benefits of employment, including the refusal to pay overtime wages as  17  required by the FSLA, are part of an on-going unlawful practice by Farm Bureau which this  Court should enjoin.  113.  Plaintiffs' Consents to Join as Class Representatives are attached hereto and  incorporated herein as Exhibits "1," "2," "3," "4," "5," "6," “7” and “8.”  VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. § 211(c)  118.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety.  119.  Farm Bureau failed to keep adequate records of the work hours and pay of Plaintiffs  and other similarly situated agents in violation of the FSLA.  See 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).  120.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were damaged in an amount to be proved at  trial as a result of Farm Bureau's violation of 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).  18  VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. § 207.  114.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety.  115.  Farm Bureau's practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs and other agents similarly  situated at a time-and-a-half rate of pay for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek violates  the FLSA.  See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).  116.  None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA regulating the duty of employers to  pay overtime at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which its  employees are employed are applicable to Farm Bureau or the Plaintiffs.  117. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were damaged in an amount to be proved at  trial as a result of Farm Bureau's violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207. 