 (FLSA Minimum Wage Violations)   (FLSA Overtime Violations)   (OPPA Violations)   (Ohio Overtime Violations)   (Ohio Minimum Wage Violations)   (Quantum Meruit)   (Unjust Enrichment)   16.  Gulfport is an Oklahoma City-based oil and natural gas exploration and  production company operating worldwide and throughout the United Stated, including Ohio. In  order to provide services to many of its customers, Gulfport contracts with certain companies,  such as “Icon Energy Services” and then “Platinum Energy Partners”, to provide Gulfport with  personnel to perform the necessary work.    17.  Many of these individuals worked for Defendant on a day-rate basis, were  misclassified as independent contractors, and make up the proposed Putative Class. While exact  job titles and job duties may differ, these “employees” are subjected to the same or similar illegal  pay practices for similar work. Specifically, Defendant misclassified all of these workers as  independent contractors and paid them a flat sum for each day worked, regardless of the number  of hours that they worked that day (or in that workweek) and failed to provide them with  overtime pay for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.    18.  For example, Plaintiff Bryon Lefort worked for Defendant as a “Lease Operator”,  also known as a well tender, from approximately September 2014 to February 2020. Throughout  his employment with Defendant, he was misclassified as an independent contractor and paid on a  day-rate basis.    19.  In this capacity, Plaintiff’s primary job duties included performing daily  inspections of assigned oil and gas leases, gauges and reports daily production of oil and water in  storage tanks, monitors daily plunger runs on plunger wells, and provides monitoring and  maintenance on the drilling pads among other duties and responsibilities as assigned by  management.   Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 5 of 20  PAGEID #: 5 Page 6   20.  The work Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members performed was an essential  part of Defendant’s core business. For example, Plaintiff and other Putative Class Members were  the night shift workers and they performed the exact same work as Defendant’s hourly, day shift  employees who were/are not misclassified as “independent contractors.”    21.  Defendant Gulfport has previously been sued for misclassifying other employees  as “independent contractors” and failing to pay those employees time and a half for all hours  worked in excess of 40 hours per week.2 In the Slone Case, employees were also sent to  Defendant Gulfport via one or more other companies, like Icon and Platinum, Gulfport  contracted with to provide personnel to perform necessary work. The Slone Case was settled, and  Plaintiff did not join the FLSA collective or settlement. Instead of changing its practice,  Defendant Gulfport continued this practice of misclassification and failing to pay overtime for  other employees, including Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.    22.  During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant while he was misclassified as an  independent contractor, Defendant exercised control over all aspects of his job. Defendant  determined Plaintiff’s opportunity for profit and loss. Plaintiff was not required to possess any  unique or specialized skillset (other than that maintained by all other workers in his respective  position) to perform his job duties. Plaintiff worked exclusively for Defendant from  approximately September 2014 to February 2020.    23.  Defendant controlled all of the significant or meaningful aspects of the job duties  performed by Plaintiff.    24.  Defendant ordered the hours and locations Plaintiff worked and rates of pay  received. In general, Plaintiff was scheduled and required to work fourteen (14) days on from  2 Slone v. Gulfport Energy Corporation, W.D. OK Case No. 5:16-cv-1296 (the “Slone Case”), ECF No. 1 attached  hereto as Exhibit B.  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 6 of 20  PAGEID #: 6 Page 7  6:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. each day and then fourteen (14) days off. However, Plaintiff was also  required to work beyond the scheduled end of his shift, up to 24 hours in a row; pick up shifts  from day shift employees; and work additional time or days outside of his general scheduled  shift. Plaintiff was not permitted to be late at the start of his shift, nor was Plaintiff allowed to  leave early before his shift ended.    25.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked at Defendant Gulfport’s drilling  pad locations, performing work that was directed and over supervised by Defendant.    26.  Defendant specified what equipment and protective clothing was required for  Plaintiff to have and use to perform his job duties. Defendant provided the large capital  investments such as leasing the land, the drilling pads, and the heavy machines.    27.  Plaintiff did not incur operating expenses such as leasing the land, payroll, and  marketing.    28.  Plaintiff was economically dependent on Defendant during his employment,  which lasted more than five (5) years.    29.  Defendant set Plaintiff’s rates of pay, his work schedule, and prohibited him from  working other jobs for other companies while he was working on jobs for Defendant.    30.  Defendant directly determined Plaintiff’s opportunity for profit and loss.  Plaintiff’s earning opportunity was based on the number of days Defendant scheduled him to  work.    31.  Very little skill, training, or initiative was required of Plaintiff (other than the  skills, training, and initiative required of all other similarly situation workers).    32.  The daily and weekly activities of Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were  routine and largely governed by standardized plans, procedures, and checklists created by  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 7 of 20  PAGEID #: 7 Page 8  Defendant. Virtually every job function was pre-determined by Defendant. In fact, Plaintiff and  the Putative Class Members performed the exact same job functions and duties as the hourly  employees of Defendant, on the same drill pads, and even filled in for these hourly employees  during the day shift if the hourly employees were unable to work that day.    33.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were prohibited from varying their job  duties outside of the pre-determined parameters. Moreover, the job functions of Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members were primarily manual labor/technical in nature, requiring little to no  official training, much less a college education or advanced degree. Plaintiff and the Putative  Class Members did not have any supervisory or management duties. Finally, for the purposes of  an FLSA overtime claim, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members performed substantially  similar job duties related to servicing energy operations in the field.    34.  Plaintiff was not employed by Defendant on a project-by-project basis. In fact,  while Plaintiff was misclassified as an “independent contractor,” he was regularly on call for  Defendant and was expected to drop everything and work whenever needed. For example, if  Defendant needed Plaintiff to work longer his scheduled shift, he was required to do so; if  Defendant needed Plaintiff to stay additional days beyond the fourteen (14) scheduled days, he  was required to do so; and if Defendant needed Plaintiff to fill in for Defendant’s hourly  employees, Plaintiff was required to do so.    35.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members performed the same or similar job duties  and are subjected to the same or similar policies and procedures which dictate the day-to-day  activities performed by each person.    36.  The Putative Class Members also worked similar hours and were denied overtime  as a result of the same illegal pay practice. The Putative Class Members all worked in excess of  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 8 of 20  PAGEID #: 8 Page 9  40 hours each week and were often scheduled for 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week, for at least 2  weeks at a time. Instead of paying them overtime, Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members a day-rate and misclassified them as “independent contractors”. Defendant denied  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members overtime pay for any and all hours worked in excess of  40 hours in each and every workweek.    37.  Defendant’s policy of failing to pay its so-called “independent contractors,”  including Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members, overtime violates the FLSA because these  workers are, for all legal purposes, employees performing non-exempt job duties.    38.  It is undisputed that the so-called independent contractors are operating and  monitoring oilfield machinery, performing manual labor, and working long hours out in the field.    39.  Because Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were misclassified as  independent contractors by Defendant, they should receive overtime for all hours that they  worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek.    40.  Defendant’s day-rate system violates the FLSA and the Ohio Acts because  Plaintiff and those similarly situated did not receive any overtime pay for hours worked over 40  hours each week.    41.  In addition to paying Plaintiff on a day-rate basis with no overtime pay,  Defendant wholly failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees any wages for  hours worked beginning in December of 2019 to February of 2020.   42.  Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and on  behalf of all other similarly situated persons who have been, are being, or will be, adversely affected  by Defendant’s unlawful conduct.  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 9 of 20  PAGEID #: 9 Page 10   43.  The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent and for whom Plaintiff seeks the right to  send “opt-in” notices for purposes of the collective action, and of which Plaintiff is himself a  member, is composed of and defined as follows:  All Ohio current and former oilfield workers employed by  Defendant who were classified as independent contractors and  paid a day-rate instead of time and one-half for hours worked  in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek during the three (3)  years preceding the fate of the filing of this Action to the  present (the “FLSA Collective” or “FLSA Collective  Members”).   44.  As set forth herein, Defendant has violated, and is violating, Section 7 of the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, by employing the FLSA Collective Members in an enterprise engaged in  commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA for  workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating such employees for their employment in  excess of 40 hours per week at rates no less than one and one-half times the regular rates of pay  for which they were employed.   45.  Defendant knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard carried out this illegal  pattern or practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members overtime  compensation. Defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation to these employees was neither  reasonable, nor was the decision not to pay overtime made in good faith.   46.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members are entitled to overtime  wages under the FLSA in an amount equal to one and one-half times their regular rate of pay,  plus liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and costs.   47.  This action is maintainable as an “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b) as to claims for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and  costs under the FLSA. In addition to Plaintiff, numerous current and former employees are similarly  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 10 of 20  PAGEID #: 10 Page 11  situated with regard to their claims for unpaid wages and damages. Plaintiff is representative of  those other employees and are acting on behalf of their interests as well as his own in bringing this  action.    48.  These similarly situated employees are known to Defendant and are readily  identifiable through Defendant’s payroll records. These individuals may readily be notified of this  action and allowed to opt-in pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of collectively  adjudicating their claims for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and  costs under the FLSA.  49.  Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf  of himself and all other current or former persons employed by Defendant within the last two years  defined as:  All Ohio current and former oilfield workers employed by  Defendant who were classified as independent contractors and  paid a day-rate instead of time and one-half for hours worked  in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek during the two (2)  years preceding the fate of the filing of this Action to the  present (the “Ohio Class” or “Ohio Class Members”).   50.  The Ohio Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.    51.  The Ohio Wage Act requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not  less than one and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked  over forty (40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the  exemptions of section 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.” See O.R.C. §  4111.03(A); see also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 11 of 20  PAGEID #: 11 Page 12   52.  As an employee for Defendant, Plaintiff and the Ohio Class worked in excess of  the maximum weekly hours permitted under O.R.C. §4111.03 but were not paid overtime wages  at one and one half times their regular rate of pay.   53.  There are questions of law or fact common to the Ohio Class including: whether  Defendant employed Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members within the meaning of the Ohio Acts;  whether Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members were improperly misclassified as independent  contractors; and whether Defendant’s illegal pay practices were applied uniformly.   54.  The OPPA requires that the Defendant pay Plaintiff and the Ohio Class all wages,  including unpaid overtime, on or before the first day of each month, for wages earned by them  during the first half of the preceding month ending with the fifteenth day thereof, and on or  before the fifteenth day of each month, for wages earned by them during the last half of the  preceding calendar month. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(A).   55.  During all times material to this complaint, Plaintiff and the Ohio Class were not  paid wages, either their regular rates, a minimum wage or overtime wages at one and one-half  times their regular rate within thirty (30) days of performing the work. See O.R.C. §4113.15(B).   56.  Plaintiff and the Ohio Class’s unpaid wages remain unpaid for more than thirty  (30) days beyond their regularly scheduled payday. In violating the OPPA, Defendant acted  willfully, without a good faith basis and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.   57.  Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Ohio Class. His interests are not  antagonistic to but, rather, are in unison with, the interests of the Ohio Class Members. Plaintiff’s  counsel has broad experience in handling class action wage-and-hour litigation and is fully qualified  to prosecute the claims of the Ohio Class Members in this case.  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 12 of 20  PAGEID #: 12 Page 13   58.  The questions of law or fact that are common to the Ohio Class predominate over  any questions affecting only individual members. The primary questions that will determine  Defendant’s liability to the Ohio Class Members, listed above, are common to the class as a whole,  and predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.   59.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. Requiring Ohio Class Members to pursue their claims individually  would entail a host of separate suits, with concomitant duplication of costs, attorneys’ fees, and  demands on court resources. Many Ohio Class Members’ claims are sufficiently small that they  would be reluctant to incur the substantial cost, expense, and risk of pursuing their claims  individually. Certification of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 will enable the issues to be  adjudicated for all class members with the efficiencies of class litigation.   V.  60.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   61.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the FLSA’s overtime provisions on  behalf of himself and the FLSA Collective Members who may join this case pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).   62.  The FLSA requires that hourly and other non-exempt employees receive overtime  compensation of “not less than one and one-half times” the employees’ “regular rate.”  29 U.S.C.  § 207(a)(1).  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 13 of 20  PAGEID #: 13 Page 14   63.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members should have been paid overtime  compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their “regular rate” for all hours worked in  excess of 40 hours per workweek.   64.  Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members as  “independent contractors” and failed to pay any overtime compensation to them.   65.  By engaging in that practice, Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and  regulations thereunder that have the force and effect of law.   66.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the FLSA  Collective Members were injured in that they did not receive overtime compensation due to them  pursuant to the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) entitles them to an award of “unpaid overtime  compensation” as well as “an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” Section 216(b)  further provides that “[t]he court … shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or  plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.”  67.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   68.  Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions  on behalf of himself and the FLSA Collective Members who may join this case pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).   69.  The FLSA requires that hourly and other non-exempt employees receive wages of  at least minimum wage. However, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members did not receive  any wages for work performed beginning in December 2019.  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 14 of 20  PAGEID #: 14 Page 15   70.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members should have been paid compensation  for their labor, but they were not.    71.  By engaging in that practice, Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and  regulations thereunder that have the force and effect of law.   72.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the FLSA  Collective Members were injured in that they did not receive any compensation due to them  pursuant to the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) entitles them to an award of “unpaid minimum wages”  as well as “an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” Section 216(b) further provides  that “[t]he court … shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow  a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.”  73.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   74.  Defendant’s practice of not misclassifying Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members  as “independent contractors” and failing to pay any overtime compensation to them violates the  Ohio Wage Act.   75.  As a result of Defendant’s practices, Plaintiff and other similarly situated Ohio Class  employees have been damaged in that they have not received overtime wages due to them pursuant  to the Ohio Wage Act.  76.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 15 of 20  PAGEID #: 15 Page 16   77.  Defendant’s failure to compensate Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members violates the  Ohio Wage Act inasmuch as they have not been compensated any wages for their labor.    78.  As a result of Defendant’s practices, Plaintiff and other similarly situated Ohio Class  employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant to the  Ohio Wage Act.  79.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   80.  Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members have been employed by Defendant.   81.  During relevant times, Defendant was an entity covered by the OPPA and Plaintiff  and the Ohio Class Members have been employed by Defendant within the meaning of the  86.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   87.  Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members rendered employment services to  Defendant.   88.  Defendant received the benefits of the employment services provided by Plaintiff  and the Ohio Class Members.   89.  Defendant’s retention of those services without providing compensation in  exchange would be unjust.   90.  Defendant has thereby been unjustly enriched and Plaintiff and the Ohio Class  Members have been damaged.   91.  The payment requested by Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members for the benefits  produced by them is based on customary and reasonable rates for such services or like services at  the time and in the locality where the services were rendered.   92.  Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members are entitled to damages equal to all unpaid  regular and overtime compensation earned within the six (6) years preceding the filing of this  Complaint plus periods of equitable tolling.   93.  Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members are entitled to an award of pre-judgment  and post-judgment interest.  Case: 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page: 17 of 20  PAGEID #: 17 Page 18  94.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully rewritten  herein.   95.  Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members rendered employment services to  Defendant and thereby conferred benefits on it.   96.  Defendant accepted and retained the benefits in circumstances that render such  retention inequitable without payment of the value of the benefits.    97.  Defendant has thereby been unjustly enriched and Plaintiff and the Ohio Class  Members have been damaged.   98.  Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members are entitled to damages equal to all unpaid  regular and overtime compensation earned within the six (6) years preceding the filing of this  Complaint plus periods of equitable tolling.   99.  Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members are entitled to an award of pre-judgment  and post-judgment interest.  VI. 