(Collective Action Claim for FLSA Violations)   (Individual Claims for FLSA Violations)   21.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully incorporated in this section.   22.  Defendant’s primary business purpose is to coordinate and conduct medical  research and clinical trials in various areas, including non-alcoholic fatty liver disease,  ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, among other services.1 Defendant employed  employees such as Plaintiffs and the collective members to accomplish these purposes.    23.  Within three years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendant hired  Plaintiffs, among other individuals, to perform relevant duties such as taking patients’ vital  signs and taking patient information.   24.  Plaintiff Perez worked for Defendant as an hourly-paid Clinical Research  Coordinator from approximately January 2017 through December 2019.   26.  As hourly-paid employees, Plaintiffs performed tasks such as taking  patients’ vital signs and taking patient information, as well as other work, for Defendant.  Other hourly-paid employees for Defendant also performed the same type of work.   27.  Defendant hired Plaintiffs and the members of the collective and set their  work schedules, including the hours to be worked, and paid them an hourly wage.    28.  Defendant exercised comprehensive control over the employment of their  employees, including the employment of Plaintiffs and the collective members.   29.  Defendant dictated the hours worked by their employees, including Plaintiffs  and the collective members.   30.  Defendant established the method and rate of pay for their employees,  including Plaintiffs and the collective members.   31.  In addition to their hourly rate of pay, Defendant paid Plaintiffs and other  hourly-paid employees additional compensation in the way of bonuses based on the  quantity and quality of work performed using objective criteria defined by Defendant in  advance.   32.  Defendant did not include bonus payments when calculating overtime  wages for Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees.   33.  Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in excess of  forty (40) hours per week for Defendant.   35.  Because Defendant did not include bonus payments in the overtime wage  calculations, Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees were not properly paid overtime  wages for all overtime hours worked by them.   36.  Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid  Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees violated the FLSA.   37.  Defendant knew or should have known that the job duties of Plaintiffs and  other hourly-paid employees required them to work hours in excess of forty (40) per week,  yet Defendant failed and refused to compensate them for their work as required by the  40.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully incorporated in this section.    41.  Plaintiffs bring this claim for relief for violation of the FLSA as a collective  action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   43.  Plaintiffs are unable to state the exact number of members of the Collective,  but believe that membership exceeds fifteen (15) persons.    44.  Defendant can readily identify the members of the Collective, who are a  certain portion of the current and former employees of Defendant.   45.  The proposed Collective members are similarly situated in that they have  been subject to uniform practices by Defendant which violated the FLSA, including:  A.  Defendant’s uniform practice of requiring Collective members to work hours  in excess of forty per week;  B.  Defendant’s uniform practice of paying Collective members bonus  payments which do not exceed fifty percent of pay during the representative period;   C.  Defendant’s failure to include bonus payments when calculating overtime  wages for the Hourly Collective members; and  D.  Defendant’s failure to pay members of the Collective proper overtime  compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) per week in violation of the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. § 201, et seq.   46.  Because Collective members are similarly situated to Plaintiffs and are  owed overtime for the same reasons, the class is properly defined as follows:  Each hourly-paid employee within the three years  preceding the filing of this Original Complaint.   47.  This action is properly brought as a collective action pursuant to the  collective action procedures of the FLSA.   49.  In addition, and in the alternative, Plaintiffs bring this action in their individual  and personal capacities, separate and apart from the collective claims set forth herein.  VI.  50.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint  as if fully set forth in this section.   51.  29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 require any enterprise engaged in commerce to  pay all employees a minimum wage for all hours worked up to forty (40) in one week and  to pay one and one-half times regular wages for all hours worked over forty (40) hours in  a week, unless an employee meets certain exemption requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 213  and all accompanying Department of Labor regulations.   52.  During the relevant time period, Defendant unlawfully refrained from paying  Plaintiffs, as hourly employees, a lawful overtime premium for hours worked over forty  (40) per week.   53.  Defendant’s failure to properly pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs stems from  Defendant’s acts failing to include all bonuses in the calculation of Plaintiffs’ overtime  wages.   54.  Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiffs all overtime wages owed was willful.   56.  Alternatively, should the Court find that Defendant acted in good faith in  failing to pay Plaintiffs as provided by the FLSA, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of  prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate.  57.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as  though fully incorporated in this section.   58.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated, assert this claim for  damages and declaratory relief pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.   59.  During the relevant time period, Defendant unlawfully refrained from paying  its hourly employees a lawful overtime premium for hours worked over forty per week.   60.  Plaintiffs propose to represent a class of individuals who are owed overtime  wages and other damages for the same reasons as Plaintiffs, which may be defined as  follows:  All hourly-paid employees who received a bonus in   connection with work performed during any week in which   they worked over forty hours in the past three years.   61.  Defendant’s failure to pay the Collective members overtime wages owed  was willful.   63.  Alternatively, should the Court find that Defendant acted in good faith in  failing to pay Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated as provided by the FLSA, Plaintiffs  and all those similarly situated are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the  applicable legal rate. 