(Class Action)  VIOLATION OF THE CONNECTICUT WAGE STATUTE   1.  Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest to Plaintiffs on these damages; and  m.  Such further relief as this court deems appropriate.  1.  Granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants and awarding the  amount of unpaid overtime wages calculated at the rate of one and one-half (1.5)  times Plaintiffs' regular rate multiplied by all hours that Plaintiffs worked in  excess of the prescribed number of hours per week for the past three (3) years for  the FLSA Class and two (2) years for the State Class;  J.  Awarding liquidated damages to Plaintiffs, in an amount equal to the amount of  unpaid overtime wages found owing to Plaintiffs and awarding Plaintiffs and the  class members all other available compensatory damages, including, inter alia, all  unpaid wages, lost interest owed, and liquidated damages by Defendants under  the FLSA and the Connecticut Wage Statute;  k.  Awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in filing this  action;   23.  Plaintiff Canedy worked as an APRN for Defendants in the APRN/P A neonatal  7  and/or pediatric group from 2003 until on or around, September 30, 2016. Plaintiff Canedy was an  hourly employee. Her hourly rate of pay varied depending on what shift she was working because  Defendants utilized shift differentials for their hourly employees.  See, e.g., Plaintiff Canedy  paystubs for the pay period 04/27/2014 through 05/10/2014, 10/11/2015 through 10/24/2015, and  05/08/2016 through 05/21/2016, attached hereto as Exhibit D.   24.  Plaintiff Walker worked as a PA for Defendants in the APRN/P A neonatal and/or  pediatric group from 2004 until on or around, October 1, 2016. Plaintiff Walker was an hourly  employee. Her hourly rate of pay varied depending on what shift she was working because  Defendants utilized shift differentials for their hourly employees.  See, e.g., Plaintiff Walker  paystubs for the pay period 07/06/2014 through 07/19/2014, 02/15/2015 through 02/28/2015, and  08/14/2016 through 08/27/2016, attached hereto as Exhibit E.   25.  Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated individuals were, or are, employed by  Defendants as hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs or other job titles performing  similar job duties of Defendants.   26.  Defendant Medical Center is a "not-for-profit children's hospital" offering a  "comprehensive array of pediatric services" at multiple hospitals, Neonatal Intensive Care Units  ("NICUs"), and specialty care centers.6  6  http://www.connecticutchildrens.org/resources/about-us/ (last visited May 11, 2017).  8   27.  Regardless of formal job title, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and  former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs' primary function was to provide  skilled care in the various neonatal and pediatric units located within Waterbury Hospital, and on  occasion, within Saint Mary's Hospital as assigned and directed to by Defendants. Specifically,  Plaintiffs' duties included, but were not limited to, attending high risk deliveries in the Family  Birthing Unit; admitting, perf01ming physical exams, developing plans of care, and providing  care for infants in the Special Care Nursery and the inpatient level 2 NICU; discussing plans and  procedure with patients' families; and providing pediatric consults in the emergency room.   28.  Despite Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former hourly neonatal  and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs regularly working in excess of 40 hours per workweek,  Defendants paid their hourly neonatal or pediatric APRNs and PAs their straight hourly rate  (plus applicable shift differentials) for their work performed in excess of 40 hours per workweek.  See, e.g., Exhibit D (noting Plaintiff Canedy worked 104 hours in two-week pay period ending  05/10/2014, 104.50 hours in two-week pay period ending 10/24/2015, and 100.50 hours in two- week pay period ending 05/21/2016 and was paid her straight time hourly rate of pay, plus  applicable shift differentials, for all hours); Exhibit E (noting Plaintiff Walker worked 104 hours  in two-week pay period ending 11/09/2013, 124.50 hours in two-week pay period ending  02/28/2015, and 112.50 hours in two-week pay period ending 08/27/2016 and was paid her straight  9  time hourly rate of pay, plus applicable shift differentials, for all hours).   29.  Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former hourly neonatal and/or  pediatric APRNs and PAs do not satisfy both the duties test and the salary-basis test to be  classified  under a bona fide exemption for learned professionals, and thus, they are non-exempt workers  under the FLSA.   30.  Defendants knew or should have known that, under the FLSA, Plaintiff and other  similarly situated current and former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs should  have been paid overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate" at which  they were employed for all compensable time for workweeks in excess of 40 hours. 29 U.S.C. §  207(a)(l).   31.  Defendants knew or should have known that under the Connecticut Wage Statute  Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs  and P As should have been paid ove1iime "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the  regular rate" at which they were employed for all compensable time for workweeks in excess of  40 hours. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.§ 31-76c.   32.  Despite this, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated  current and former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs overtime at one and one- 10  half times their regular rates of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours per workweek.  3 3.  In reckless disregard of the FLSA and the Connecticut Wage Statute, Defendants  adopted and then adhered to their policy and plan of employing Plaintiffs and other similarly  situated current and former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs to perform work in  excess of 40 hours per workweek without premium overtime compensation for those hours. This  policy resulted in Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former hourly neonatal  and/or pediatric APRNs and P As not being paid overtime premiums in violation of the FLSA  and the Connecticut Wage Statute.  34.  Plaintiff Canedy brings this collective action pursuant to 29 U .S.C. § 2 l 6(b) of the  FLSA individually and on behalf of:  All cmTent and former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs  and PAs or other job titles performing similar job duties employed  by CCMC, Corp., Connecticut Children's Medical Center, and/or  Connecticut Children's Specialty Group, Inc., at any time during  the last three years, who performed work in excess of 40 hours in  any given workweek and were not compensated at the overtime  premmm.  Plaintiff Canedy reserve the right to amend the putative class definition as necessary.   35.  Plaintiff Canedy does not bring this collective action on behalf of any employees  11  correctly classified as exempt from coverage under the FLSA pursuant to the executive,  administrative, or professional exemptions, or for those who were paid the legal rate for each  hour worked.   36.  29 US.C. § 216(b) Conditional Certification "Similarly Situated" Standard:  With respect to the claims set forth in the FLSA action, conditional certification under the FLSA  is appropriate because the employees described above are "similarly situated" to Plaintiff Canedy  under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The class of employees on behalf of whom Plaintiff Canedy brings  this collective action are similarly situated because: (a) they have been or are employed in the  same or similar positions; (b) they were or are subject to the same or similar unlawful practices,  policy, or plan (namely, Defendants' policy of not paying their hourly neonatal and/or pediatric  APRNs and PAs or other job titles performing similar job duties for worked performed in excess  of 40 hours per workweek at the overtime at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rates  of pay); (c) their claims are based upon the same factual and legal theories; and (d) the  employment relationship between Defendants and every putative Class member is exactly the  same and differs only by name, location, and rate of pay.   37.  Plaintiff Canedy shares the same interests as the putative conditional class and  will be entitled to unpaid compensation at a rate of at least minimum wage, overtime  compensation, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs owed under the FLSA.  12   38.  Plaintiff Canedy's entitlement to premium overtime pay for workweeks in excess  of 40 hours would be similar, except for amount, of individuals similarly situated to her and  depends on an identical factual question: whether Plaintiff Canedy and the putative conditional  class were required by Defendants to perform work in excess of 40 hours per workweek and  whether Defendants denied them premium overtime compensation for their work performed in  excess of 40 hours per workweek.   39.  Defendants' conduct constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA within the  meaning of29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   40.  Defendants willfully engaged in a pattern of violating the FLSA, as described in  this Complaint in ways including, but not limited to, by routinely suffering or permitting Plaintiff  Canedy, FLSA Collective action member, Plaintiff Walker, and the putative conditional class to  work in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving premium overtime compensation at one  and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked and instead only paying Plaintiff  Canedy, FLSA Collective action member, Plaintiff Walker, and the putative conditional class  their straight time hourly rate of pay (plus applicable shift differentials) for hours worked in  excess of 40.  13   41.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate Plaintiff  Canedy, FLSA Collective action member, Plaintiff Walker, and the putative conditional class,  and as such, notice should be sent.   42.  Upon information and belief, there are numerous and other similarly situated  current and f01mer hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs or other job titles  perfom1ing similar job duties, who performed work in excess of 40 hours per workweek and  were not compensated overtime premiums in violation of FLSA and would benefit from the  issuance of a court-supervised notice of this action and the opportunity to join it. The precise  number of collective Class members should be readily available from a review of Defendants'  personnel, scheduling, time and payroll records, and from input received from the collective  class members as part of the notice and "opt-in" process provided by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  43.  Plaintiff Walker brings this class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23 (b )(3) and ( c )( 4) on behalf of a putative Class defined to include:  All current and former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs  and P As or other job titles performing similar job duties employed  by CCMC, Corp., Connecticut Children's Medical Center, and/or  Connecticut Children's Specialty Group, Inc., at any time during  the last two years, who performed work in excess of 40 hours in  any given workweek and were not compensated at the overtime  premmm.  14  Plaintiff Walker reserve the right to amend the putative class definition as necessary.   44.  Numerosity: The members of the Connecticut Class are so numerous that joinder  of all members in the case would be impracticable, and the disposition of their claims as a Class  will benefit the parties and the Court. The precise number of Class members should be readily  available from a review of Defendants' personnel and payroll records.   45.  Commonality/Predominance:  There is a well-defined community of interest  among Connecticut Class members and common questions of both law and fact predominate in  the action over any questions affecting individual members. These common legal and factual  questions include, but are not limited to, the following:  a. whether Defendants maintained common policies or practices that  required its employees to perform work beyond 40 hours in a  workweek;  b. whether the Connecticut Wage Statute requires Defendants to pay  overtime wages to Plaintiffs and the putative class members for  requiring them to perfonn work;  c. whether Defendants violated the Connecticut Wage Statute through its  pay practices;  d. whether Defendants should be required to pay compensatory damages,  attorneys' fees, costs, and interest for violating the Connecticut Wage  Statute; and  e. whether Defendants' violations were willful.  15   46.  Typicality: Plaintiff Walker's claims are typical of those of Connecticut Class  member, Plaintiff Canedy, and the Connecticut Class in that Plaintiff Walker and all other  members suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' common and  systemic payroll policies and practices.  Plaintiff Walker's claims arise from Defendants'  policies, practices, and course of conduct as all other Connecticut Class members' claims,  including, Connecticut Class member, Plaintiff Canedy, and Plaintiff Walker's legal theories are  based on the same legal theories as all other Connecticut Class members: whether all Class  members were employed by Defendants on an hourly basis without receiving overtime wages  owed for that work.   47.  Adequacy: Plaintiff Walker will fully and adequately protect the interests of the  Connecticut Class and Plaintiff Walker and Connecticut Class member, Plaintiff Canedy,  retained national counsel who are qualified and experienced in the prosecution of nationwide  wage-and-hour class actions. Neither Plaintiff Walker, Connecticut Class member, Plaintiff  Canedy, nor their counsel has interests that are contrary to, or conflicting with, the interests of  the Connecticut Class.   48.  Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the controversy, because, inter alia, it is economically infeasible for  Connecticut Class members to prosecute individual actions of their own given the relatively  16  small amount of damages at stake for each individual along with the fear of reprisal by their  employer.   49.  The case will be manageable as a class action. Plaintiff Walker, Connecticut  Class member, Plaintiff Canedy, and their counsel know of no unusual difficulties in the case  and Defendants have payroll systems that will allow the class, wage, and damages issues in the  case to be resolved with relative ease.  Because the elements of Rule 23(b)(3), or in the  alternative ( c )( 4 ), are satisfied in the case, class certification is appropriate.  Shady Grove  Orthopedic Assoc., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398 (2010) ("[b]y its terms [Rule 23]  creates a categorical rule entitling a plaintiff whose suit meets the specified criteria to pursue her  claim as a class action").  50.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous paragraphs herein.   51.  At all relevant times, Defendants were separately and jointly "employers" of  Plaintiffs within the meanings of 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), subject to the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §§  201, et seq., and were members of, and engaged in, a joint venture, partnership, and common  enterprise, and were acting within the course and scope of, and in pursuance of said joint  venture, partnership or common enterprise in employing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated  17  current and former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs or other job titles  performing similar job duties.   52.  Defendants are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for  commerce, as defined by the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(l)(A)-(C).   53.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were each an "employee" of Defendants within the  meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(l).   54.  Plaintiffs either (1) engaged in commerce; or (2) engaged in the production of  goods for commerce; or (3) employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production  of goods for commerce.   55.  The position of hourly neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs is not exempt  from the FLSA.   56.  Defendants' other hourly job titles performing similar job duties as hourly  neonatal and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs are not exempt from the FLSA.   57.  At all relevant times, Defendants "suffered or permitted" Plaintiffs to work and  thus "employed" her within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).   58.  The FLSA requires an employer to pay employees the federally mandated  overtime premium rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay for every hour worked in  excess of 40 hours per workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207.  18   59.  Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs the federally mandated  overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.   60.  Upon information and belief, Defendants have corporate policies and practices of  evading premium overtime pay for its current and former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric  APRNs and PAs and Defendants' violations of the FLSA were knowing and willful.   61.  By failing to compensate their current and former hourly neonatal and/or pediatric  APRNs and PAs or other job titles performing similar job duties at a rate not less than one and  one-half times their regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of forty hours in a  workweek, Defendants have violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., including 29 U.S.C.  §§ 207(a)(l) and 215(a).  All similarly situated current and former hourly neonatal and/or  pediatric APRNs and PAs or other job titles performing similar job duties are victims of a  uniform and company-wide policy which operates to compensate employees at a rate less than  the federally mandated overtime wage rate. This uniform policy, in violation of the FLSA, has  been, and continues to be, applied to all employees who have worked or are working for  Defendants in the same or similar position as Plaintiffs.   62.  The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), provides that as a remedy for a violation of the  Act, an employee is entitled to his or her unpaid overtime wages plus an additional equal amount  in liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.  19  63.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previous paragraphs herein and further  alleges as follows.   64.  At all relevant times, Defendants were separately and jointly "employers" of  Plaintiffs, covered by the overtime mandates of the Connecticut Wage Statute. See Conn. Gen.  Stat. Ann.§ 3 l-7la(l).   65.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were each an "employee" of Defendants within the  meaning ofthe Connecticut Wage Statute. See id. at§ 31-71a(2).   66.  The Connecticut Wage Statute requires employees be paid overtime "at a rate not  less than one and one-half times the regular rate" at which they were employed for all  compensable time for workweeks in excess of 40 hours. Id. § 31-76c.   67.  The Connecticut Wage Statute requires each employer to "pay weekly, or once  every two weeks, all wages, salary or other compensation due each employee on a regular pay  day." Id. at§ 31-7lb(a)(l).   68.  When an employer fails to pay an employee in accordance to the Connecticut  Wage Statute, employees are entitled to bring a civil action to recover "twice the full amount of  such wages, with costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court." Id.  20  § 31-72.   69.  Defendants violated the Connecticut Wage Statute by regularly and repeatedly  failing to compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former hourly neonatal  and/or pediatric APRNs and PAs for hours worked in excess of 40 at the premium overtime rate,  as described in this Complaint.   70.  As a result, Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Class have and will continue to suffer  loss of income and other damages. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Class are entitled  to recover unpaid wages owed, plus costs, attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief under the  Connecticut Wage Statute at an amount to be proven at trial  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests the following relief:  a.  Certifying this case as a collective action in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)  with respect to the FLSA claims set forth above;  b.  Certifying the Connecticut class in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) or  ( c )( 4) with respect to the claims set forth above;  c.  Designating Named Plaintiff, Plaintiff Canedy, as the Class Representative of the  FLSA Collective Class;  d.  Designating Named Plaintiff, Plaintiff Walker, as the Class Representative of the  Rule 23 Connecticut Class;  e.  Appointing Johnson Becker, PLLC as Interim Lead Class Counsel with respect to  Plaintiffs Rule 23 claims and FLSA claims;  f.  Declaring that Defendants willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and its  21  attendant regulations as set forth above;  g.  Declaring that Defendants violated its obligations under the FLSA;  h.  Declaring that Defendants willfully violated the Connecticut Wage Statute;   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,  29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES  