15.  “Founded in 1969, Curriculum Associates, LLC designs research-based print and online  instructional materials, screens and assessments, and data management tools.”  In 2018,  Defendant appeared in the “37th annual Inc. 5000, the most prestigious ranking of the  nation’s  fastest-growing  private  companies.”  See  Defendant  website:   https://www2.curriculumassociates.com/aboutus/Press-Release-Curriculum- Associates-featured-on-37th-annual-Inc-5000.aspx.   16.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an “employer” engaged  in the interstate “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for “commerce” within  the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.    18.  Defendant paid Plaintiff and other Account Specialists on a salary plus bonus basis.    19.  Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other Account Specialists any overtime premiums  for hours worked more than forty (40) per week.   20.  Defendant did not require Plaintiff and the other Account Specialists to utilize any  timekeeping system during this time period.   21.  Defendant uniformly applied its payment structure to all Account Specialists.     22.  Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and other Account Specialists to work more  than forty hours per week without overtime compensation for all hours worked. For  example, Plaintiff and other Account Specialists regularly worked at least five days a  week. They usually began work in the early morning. In addition, Plaintiff and other  Account Specialists regularly worked into the evenings and on the weekends, causing  their hours worked to exceed forty in a week on a regular basis.    23.  Defendant knew Plaintiff and other Account Specialists worked more than forty hours  in a week because Defendant expected Plaintiff and Account Specialists to be available  to receive phone calls and answer emails – from customers and from Defendant’s  management employees – in the mornings, evenings, and on weekends. Also, for  example, Plaintiff and other Account Specialists were expected to timely respond to  customer inquiries and/or questions after receiving them.  Plaintiff sometimes received  these inquiries and/or questions in the evenings and on the weekends.     24.  Defendant uniformly denied Plaintiff and other Account Specialists overtime pay.   26.  Plaintiff and the other Account Specialists had the same duties of data entry and directly  working with customers.   27.  Plaintiff and other Account Specialists are and were entry-level employees who are and  were entitled to minimum wages and/or overtime pay.    28.  Plaintiff and other Account Specialists did not customarily and regularly make sales at  their customers’ home or place of business.   29.  Plaintiff and other Account Specialists did not regularly supervise the work of two or  more employees.   30.  Plaintiff and other Account Specialists did not exercise discretion and independent  judgment as to matters of significance.   31.  Plaintiff and other Account Specialists did not perform office work related to  Defendant’s general business operations or its customers.   32.  Plaintiff and other Account Specialists had no advance knowledge in a field of science  or learning which required specialized instruction that was required to perform the job.   33.  All Account Specialists are similarly situated in that they share common job duties and  descriptions, Defendant treated them as exempt employees at relevant times, and were  all subject to Defendant’ policy and practice that paid them a salary plus bonus, and they  all performed work without overtime compensation for all hours worked.   35.  Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and the other Account Specialists with accurate  paychecks.   36.  Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other Account Specialists for all of their overtime  hours. Accordingly, Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and other Account Specialists  with all compensation owed to them, including their unpaid overtime, at the time they  separated from the company.   37.  Defendant are aware of wage and hour laws, as evidenced by the fact that they provide  minimum wage and overtime compensation to other employees who are not Account  Specialists.    38.  Defendant’ conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, was willful and in bad faith, and has  caused significant damages to Plaintiff and other Account Specialists.  FLSA Collective   39.  Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees as  authorized under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The similarly situated employees are:  All persons who are, have been, or will be employed by Defendant as “Account  Specialists,” “Senior Account Specialists,” and other individuals who worked in similar  job titles within the United States at any time during the last three years through the  entry of judgment in this case (“FLSA Collective”).  Plaintiff will subgroup the FLSA Collective as necessary for certification and/or  litigation purposes.   40.  Upon information and belief, Defendant paid Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective on a  salary plus bonus basis, and suffered and permitted them to work more than forty hours  per week without overtime compensation.   42.  Defendant’s conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, was willful and in bad faith, and has  caused significant damages to Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.   43.  Defendant is liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and the  FLSA Collective, and as such, notice should be sent to the FLSA Collective. There  are numerous similarly situated, current and former employees of Defendant who have  been denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance  of a Court supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join. Those  similarly situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily identifiable through  Defendant’s records.  The Rule 23 Class   44.  Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 151 §§ 1, 1A, 1B and M.G.L. c. 149 §§ 148, 150, and Rule 23,  Plaintiff brings the Massachusetts state law claims on behalf of herself and all others  similarly situated which are all persons who Defendant employed in the state of  Massachusetts at any time from three years back from the date this Complaint is filed  until the entry of judgment in this case who held the position(s) of Account Specialist,  Senior Account Specialist, and/or in other like jobs, were non-exempt employees within  the meaning of the Massachusetts Labor Law, and who have not been paid for all hours  worked, including overtime wages, in violation of the Massachusetts Labor Law.   46.  The claims of the Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class are typical because they worked in the  same and/or similar job with the same/similar illegal wage practices.  Further, Plaintiff  seeks to recover damages on her own behalf and on behalf of the Rule 23 Class Members.   47.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication  of the controversy because a series of such individual wage lawsuits would be  duplicative, inefficient, and burdensome on this Court.  This is particularly in the context  of wage and hour litigation where individual plaintiffs lack the financial resources to  vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court.   48.  Defendant has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Rule 23  Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory  relief with respect to the Class as a whole.   49.  Plaintiff is committed to pursuing this action and has retained competent counsel who  are experienced in wage and hour, and class action litigation.   51.  Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, § 150, Plaintiff filed notice of her statutory claims with the  Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General on February 14, 2019.   52.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint  into this count.   53.  The FLSA requires each covered employer such as Defendant to compensate all non-  exempt employees at the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked up to forty  hours per week, and a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay  for work performed in excess of forty hours per work week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   54.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective are entitled to be paid minimum wages and/or  overtime compensation for all hours worked.   55.  Defendant, pursuant to their policies and practices, failed and refused to pay minimum  wages and/or overtime premiums to Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective for all of their  hours worked.   57.  By failing to record, report, and/or preserve accurate records of hours worked by Plaintiff  and the FLSA Collective, Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records with  respect to each of their employees sufficient to determine their wages, hours, and other  conditions and practice of employment, in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.   58.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   59.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the FLSA Collective, seek damages in the amount of  all respective unpaid minimum wages at the applicable rate and overtime compensation  at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess  of forty hours in a work week, plus liquidated damages as provided by the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. § 216(b), interest, and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems  just and proper.   60.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the FLSA Collective seek recovery of all attorneys’  fees, costs, and expenses of this action, to be paid by Defendant, as provided by the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  61.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint  into this count.   63.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint  into this count.   64.  As non-exempt employees, Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class are entitled to be paid for all  hours worked including overtime compensation.  Defendant’s failure to pay overtime  wages as required by 29 U.S.C. § 207 and Mass. Gen. L. c. 151 §§ 1, 1A, caused Plaintiff  and the putative class members to be deprived of the full amount of their earned wages  when same became due and payable, including upon their termination.    65.  Defendant willfully violated the rights of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class by failing to  pay them for all hours worked including overtime hours in violation of M.G.L. c. 149, §  148.  This claim is brought pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 149 § 150.   66.  Defendant’s Massachusetts Labor Law violations have caused Plaintiff and the Rule 23  Class irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.   Collective Action under §216(b) of the FAIR LABOR  STANDARDS ACT and Overtime Claims   Rule 23 Class Action Massachusetts State Law Overtime Claims   Rule 23 Class Action State Massachusetts Wage Act Claims  