1.  At all times relevant to this Complaint, Ms. Karstens resided in Maricopa  County, Arizona, and is a citizen of the State of Arizona.   10.  At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant has employed all Class  Members in the role of phlebotomists during the Violative Period.   11.  Defendant is an employer as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).   12.  Plaintiffs and each Class Member were Defendant’s employees as defined in  17.  Defendant is hired by employers across the United States to facilitate  employer wellness initiatives.   18.  As part of that service, Defendant employs phlebotomists to visit its clients  on-site to perform health assessments, which includes drawing blood, and providing that  data to Defendant.   19.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has employed approximately 600  phlebotomists during the Violative Period.   20.  As phlebotomists, Plaintiffs and each Class Member, are/were non-exempt  employees for Defendant.   21.  Throughout all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant treated  phlebotomists as non-exempt employees.   22.  All phlebotomists are/were required to track the hours worked, report those  hours to Defendant, and Defendant purported to pay phlebotomists for hours worked.   23.  All phlebotomists are/were paid at an hourly rate.   24.  Defendant’s policy acknowledges phlebotomists are non-exempt employees.  Allegations Regarding Required Weekly Free Work   25.  Plaintiffs, and each Class Member, is/was required to perform work for  Defendant without compensation.   26.  Defendant’s Company-wide policies and procedures provided that Plaintiffs,  and each Class Member, is/was required to perform work without compensation.   28.  Every week Plaintiffs, and each Class Member, worked he/she is/was  required to perform the following tasks without compensation:  a.  Travel to the local FedEx Office in his/her respective city of residence  to retrieve the patient files for the next week’s job;  b.  Promptly secure the files at his/her home in his/her city of residence;  c.  Review, prepare, and organize the patient files for the next week’s job,  including printing and completing labels and filling out forms;  d.  Contact the site that he/she is to visit the next week for introduction,  general customer service, and to discuss logistics;  e.  Identify local FedEx and LabCorp facilities in the destination city;  f.  Confirm the accuracy of the FedEx shipping lists, and make any  necessary corrections, for the next week’s job;  g.  Prepare and highlight packets for walk-in patients for the next week’s  job; and  h.  Confirm all travel plans and coordinate with other phlebotomist team  members for the upcoming job.   29.  For weeks in which Plaintiffs, and each Class Member, were required to fly to  the destination city, Company policy required them to arrive at the airport at least two hours  early without compensation.   3.  At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant was a Corporation  authorized to conduct, and conducting business, in Maricopa County, Arizona and the State  of Illinois.   30.  Defendant’s policy requires Plaintiffs, and each Class Member, to check their  Company emails daily, and make any necessary responses, without compensation.   31.  Defendant’s policy requires Plaintiffs, and each Class Member, to participate  in a weekly conference calls without compensation.  If Plaintiffs, or any Class Member,  were unable to participate in a weekly call, Defendant required him/her to obtain notes from  the call(s), review them, and report that review to his/her supervisor – all without  compensation.  Allegations Regarding Monthly and Annual Required Free Work   33.  Defendant has/does require Plaintiffs, and each Class Member, to complete  several hours of trainings without compensation.   34.  Defendant has/does require Plaintiffs, and each Class Member, to review and  analyze all Standard Operating Procedures and policies regularly while “off the clock.”   35.  Defendant has/does require Plaintiffs, and each Class Member, to review and  replenish inventory without compensation.   36.  Defendant has/does require Plaintiffs, and each Class Member, to check  supply expiration dates, and replace any expired items, without compensation.  Allegations Regarding Defendant’s Willful Violation   37.  Plaintiffs, and various Class Members, tracked the time worked on  Defendant’s behalf.   38.  Defendant removed tracked time from Plaintiffs’, and various Class  Members’, time cards for work performed in paragraphs 24-36 in this Complaint.   39.  Defendant reaffirmed its policy and procedure of not compensating Plaintiffs,  and each Class Member, for the work performed in paragraphs 24-36 in this Complaint.   4.  Defendant is an Illinois Corporation, authorized to conduct, and conducting  business, in several states throughout the United States.   40.  In refusing to compensate Plaintiffs on one occasion, Defendant’s HR  manager expressly noted:  “I don’t know where you get your information” that she should  be paid for performing this work.   41.  In other correspondence, Defendant’s managers reaffirm that Plaintiffs, and  each Class Member, do not get paid for travel time when traveling on behalf of Defendant.   43.  Defendant’s directors further recognize the global issue in March 2019  correspondence:  “It is not everyone . . . . but they [Plaintiffs and Class Members] are all  talking . . . . and I worry that we will have requests of more missing hours.”   44.  After requesting to be paid for hours worked and denied by Defendant, and/or  hearing of others’ denials, Plaintiffs and Class Members did not complain each and every  time that they were not compensated for work performed on behalf of Defendant.  Class Action and Collective Action Allegations   45.  Plaintiffs bring this Class Action on their own behalves, and pursuant to  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), on behalf of the following  Class (“Class Members”).   46.  Plaintiffs also bring this action as a “collective action” under the Act because,  as discussed in this Complaint, the Defendants employees are similarly situated.   47.  The Class is initially defined as:  any current or former employee of  Defendant, engaged as a phlebotomist, from March 1, 2016 to date of filing.   48.  Numerosity – Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).  The number of Class Members is so  numerous that joinder of all individuals to a single complaint would be impractical.  Though  the exact number of Class Members is unknown and in complete control of Defendant,  based upon assignment sheets which identify every current phlebotomist each week, given  turnover, it is reasonable to believe that there are a minimum of 500 Class Members.  The  Class Members are readily identifiable from Defendant’s employment and payroll records.   5.  Plaintiff Krista Karstens is a current employee of Defendant and started  working for Defendant in 2015.   50.  Typicality – Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of all other  Class Members.  Plaintiffs, like all other Class Members, are phlebotomists that performed  work for Defendant that was uncompensated.  All Class Members were subjected to  Defendant’s global policy and practice of not paying them for work performed.   51.  Adequacy of Representation – Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).  Plaintiffs will fairly  and adequately represent the Class Members.  Plaintiffs were employed with Defendant for  the entire Violative Period, Plaintiff Karstens remains employed and Plaintiff Kazmierczak  represents former employees.  The Plaintiffs live in different geographic regions of the  country, further representative of the Class Members.  Both Plaintiffs have the same non- conflicting interests as the other Class Members.  Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel  that has experience in litigating Class Action matters, including certified Class Actions that  involve federal employment and commercial litigation claims.  As such, the Class  Members’ claims will be fairly and adequately represented by Plaintiffs and their counsel.   52.  Superiority of Class Action – Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  A class action is  superior to other available methods for adjudicating the claims effectively and efficiently.   The adjudication through class will avoid potentially inconsistent and conflicting results of  the asserted claim.  There will be no difficulty in managing the Class, and a single  adjudication of the claim will substantially benefit the Class Members and the Court.   Damages for individual Class Members are likely inadequate to justify the cost of individual  litigation – especially in light of the fact that the Class Members are/were non-exempt  employees with relatively lower income.  As such, absent class treatment, Defendant’s  willful violations of law inflicting significant damages in the aggregate would go  unremedied.   54.  Plaintiffs, and Class Members, re-allege and incorporate by reference  paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein.   55.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs, and Class Members, for work performed  during the Violative Period in violating of the Act.   56.  Defendant acted and continues to act with malice or reckless disregard to  Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights, and thus, Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to  recover punitive damages in amount to be determined at trial.   57.  Plaintiffs, and each Class Member, are entitled to recover all unpaid wages,  liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of the action.  Count Two:  Declaration and Injunctive Relief   58.  Plaintiffs, and Class Members, re-allege and incorporate by reference  paragraphs 1 through 57 as if fully set forth herein.   59.  There is a present and actual controversy between, on the one hand, Plaintiff  and Class Members, and on the other hand, Defendant, concerning their rights and  respective duties under the Act.    6.  Plaintiff Liliana Kazmierczak was employed by Defendant from May 2016  until April 18, 2019.   60.  Plaintiffs, and Class Members, contend that Defendant violated their rights  under the Act.   61.  Plaintiffs, and Class Members, are informed and believe, and therefore allege,  that Defendant denies any liability to them.   62.  Plaintiffs, and Class Members, seek a judicial declaration of the rights and  duties of the respective parties under the Act.  Declaratory relief is therefore necessary and  appropriate.   63.  Plaintiffs, and Class Members, has suffered injury in fact and has lost money  in wages as a result of Defendant's unlawful and unfair practices in violation of the Act.   65.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class Members are authorized to pursue  injunctive relief against Defendant that is necessary to prevent Defendant’s further  violations of their rights under the Act.   66.  Defendant acted and continues to act with malice or reckless disregard to  Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights, and thus, Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to  recover punitive damages in amount to be determined at trial.  7.  At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant has employed Plaintiffs as  phlebotomists.    8.  The Class Members that Plaintiffs represent are current and former employees  of Defendant, employed for some time during March 2016 to present (“Violative Period”).   9.  Class Members were employed by Defendant across dozens of states across  the United States.  