105.  Plaintiffs bring the Second and Third Counts under Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons consisting of:  All home health care workers or domestic-service workers who (1) worked for  Defendants at any time from May 18, 2015 to present in Ohio, and (2) worked  more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks.   106.  Excluded from the Rule 23 Class are Defendants’ legal representatives, officers,  directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at any time during the class  period has had, a controlling interest in Defendants; the Judge(s) to whom this case is assigned  and any member of the Judges’ immediate family; and all persons who will submit timely and  otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the Rule 23 Class.    107.  The number and identity of the Rule 23 Class members are ascertainable from  Defendants’ records.  The hours assigned and worked, the positions held, and the rates of pay for  each Rule 23 Class Member are also determinable from Defendants’ records.  For the purpose of  13  notice and other purposes related to this action, their names, addresses, email addresses, and  phone numbers are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided by means  permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.    108.  The Rule 23 Class member are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable, and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court.  109.  There are more than 50 Rule 23 Class members.  110.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those claims which could be alleged by any Rule 23  Class member, and the relief sought is typical of the relief which would be sought by each Rule 23  Class member in separate actions.  111.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class members were subject to the same corporate  practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, of failing to pay overtime wages for hours worked in  excess of 40 per workweek.  112.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class members have all sustained similar types of  damages as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with OMFWSA, and O.R.C. § 4113.15.  113.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class members have all been injured in that they have  been uncompensated or under-compensated due to Defendants’ common policies, practices, and  patterns of conduct.  Defendants’ corporate-wide policies and practices affected all Rule 23 Class  members similarly, and Defendants benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts  as to each of the Rule 23 Class members.  114.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class members sustained similar losses, injuries, and  damages arising from the same unlawful practices, polices, and procedures.  115.  By seeking to represent the interests of the Rule 23 Class members, Plaintiffs are  14  exercising and intend to exercise their right to engage in concerted activity for the mutual aid or  benefit of themselves and their co-workers.  116.  Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Rule 23 Class  and have no interests antagonistic to the Rule 23 Class.  117.  Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys who are experienced and competent in both  class action litigation and employment litigation.  118.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation on behalf  of minimum wage employees where individual class members lack the financial resources to  vigorously prosecute a lawsuit against corporate defendants.  Class action treatment will permit a  large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum  simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary duplication of efforts and expense that  numerous individual actions engender.  Because the losses, injuries, and damages suffered by  each of the individual Rule 23 Class members are small in the sense pertinent to class action  analysis, the expenses and burden of individual litigation would make it extremely difficult or  impossible for the individual Rule 23 Class members to redress the wrongs done to them.      119.  Upon information and belief, Defendants and other employers throughout the  state violate the OMFWSA and O.R.C. § 4113.15.  Current employees are often afraid to assert  their rights out of fear of direct and indirect retaliation.  Former employees are fearful of bringing  claims because doing so can harm their employment, future employment, and future efforts to  secure employment.  Class actions provide class members who are not named in the complaint a  15  degree of anonymity, which allows for the vindication of their rights while eliminating or  reducing these risks.    120.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(3).  121.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Rule 23 Class that predominate  over any questions only affecting Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class members individually and  include, but are not limited to:  a. Whether Defendants were required to pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and the  Rule 23 class members;  b. Whether Defendants properly compensated Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class for  hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek;  c. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class in a timely  manner as described by O.R.C. § 4113.15;  d. Whether Defendants’ policy of failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class was  instituted willfully or with reckless disregard of the law; and  e. The nature and extent of class-wide injury and the measure of damages for those  injuries.    122.  In recognition of the services Plaintiffs have rendered and will continue to render  to the Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs will request payment of a service award upon resolution of this  action.  80.  Plaintiff Dodge has worked for Defendants as a home care provider from June  2017 to approximately March.   81.  Plaintiff Flores has worked for Defendants as a home care provider from January  2017 to approximately March.   82.  Plaintiff Dodge’s job duties include helping defendants’ clients go about their  daily lives—she helped them clean, prepared meals, provided transportation, administered some  medications, spent time with them, and did various other tasks for Defendants’ clients on an as  needed basis.  10   83.  Plaintiff Flores’ job duties include helping defendants’ clients go about their daily  lives—she helped them clean, prepared meals, provided transportation, administered some  medications, spent time with them, and did various other tasks for Defendants’ clients on an as  needed basis.   84.  Plaintiff Dodge’s regular hourly rate was $9.00 per hour for the work she  completed for Defendants.    85.  Plaintiff Flores’ regularly hourly rate was $8.50 per hour from the beginning of  her employment until June 9, 2017, when she received a raise to $9.00 per hour.   86.  Plaintiffs were paid minimum wage for hours worked between 10:30 P.M. and  96.  Plaintiffs bring the First Count on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated  current and former home care providers or other domestic-service workers who (1) worked for  Defendants from May 18, 2015 to the date of final judgment in this matter, and (2) worked more  than 40 hours in one or more workweeks (the “FLSA Collective”).   97.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have been similarly  situated, have had substantially similar job duties, requirements, and pay provisions, and have all  been subject to Defendants’ decision, policy, plan, practices, procedures, protocols, and rules of  willfully refusing to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective time-and-one-half overtime pay for  hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.  Plaintiffs’ claims are essentially the same as those of  the FLSA Collective.    98.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct is pursuant to a corporate policy or practice of  minimizing labor costs by failing to properly pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective.   99.  Defendants are aware or should have been aware that federal law required them to  pay non-exempt employees an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 per workweek.  12  100.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.  101.  The First Count is properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in collective  action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  102.  The FLSA Collective members are readily identifiable and ascertainable.  103.  For the purpose of notice and other purposes related to this action, the FLSA  Collective members’ names and addresses are readily available from Defendants’ records.  104.  In recognition of the services Plaintiffs have rendered and will continue to render  to the FLSA Collective, Plaintiffs will request payment of a service award upon resolution of this  action.  Failure to Pay Overtime Wages – Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class)  129.  Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.  130.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class worked more than 40 hours in one or more  workweeks.   17  131.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class at least one and a half  times their normal hourly rate for time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.   132.  By not paying Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class proper overtime wages for time  worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, Defendants have violated the OMFWSA.   133.  As a result of Defendants’ violations, Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class are entitled  to damages, including, but not limited to, unpaid overtime wages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.  Failure to Pay Overtime Wages – Fair Labor Standards Act  16  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective)  123.  Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.  124.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective worked more than 40 hours in one or more  workweeks.   125.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective at least one and a half  times their normal hourly rate for time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.   126.  Since January 1, 2015, agencies employing home care providers have been  required to pay them time and a half their regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per  workweek.  127.  By not paying Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective proper overtime wages for time  worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, Defendants have willfully violated the FLSA.   128.  As a result of Defendants’ willful violations, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective  are entitled to damages, including, but not limited to, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, costs,  and attorneys’ fees. 