23.  Defendant is an airline company that employs more than 47,000  workers.     25.  Plaintiff worked in Defendant’s customer service call center in  Albuquerque, New Mexico along with approximately 500 other customer service  representatives.     26.  Plaintiff’s primary duty was to communicate with customers to book  customer reservations, answer questions, handle flight cancellations, and resolve general  questions from Defendant’s customers.     27.  Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Class Members on an hourly basis.     28.  Before the Plaintiff and Class Members began their work for  Defendant, Defendant required an approximately six week training session.     29.  This training session focused on customer relations skills as well as  Defendant’s operations.     30.  The training session included a classroom module during which the  Plaintiff and Class Members were paid their hourly rates.    31.  However, this classroom module required extensive homework.  The  Plaintiff and Class Members were required by Defendant to complete the homework and  the homework was directly related to their work for Defendant.     32.  Unfortunately, the Plaintiff and Class Members were not paid for the  time spent completing this homework.     34.  The Plaintiff and Class Members typically spent one hour to one and  one half hours each night to complete the homework.        35.  After completion of the training session, the Plaintiff and Class  Members were allowed to work at the call centers.  The call center is essentially an open  room filled with hundreds of work stations.     36.  However, the work stations are not pre-assigned but are filled by  customer service representatives on a first come basis.   37.  The call centers operate twenty hours each day with overlapping shifts.   At times, the Plaintiff and Class Members spent 15 to 30 minutes to find an open  computer and to log in to the computer system.  Defendant did not compensate the  Plaintiff and the Class Members for this time.    38.  After finding an open work station, the next step is to turn on the  computer.  After turning on the computer, a customer service representative opens a series  of programs in an order required by Defendant, including a program for processing  reservations.  The final program a customer service representative is to open is the phone  system.  The phone program serves as the time clock. Once this program is opened, the  Plaintiff and Class Members were considered “clocked in.”   40.  At the end of the shift, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required  to first close the phone program, which then clocked them out.  Afterwards, the Plaintiff  and Class Members were required to close the remainder of the computer programs.  This  process took approximately 10 minutes.   41.  Furthermore, Defendant instituted a policy whereby the Plaintiff and  Class Members were only paid for 15 minutes for calls occurring at the end of their shift.  In other words, if the Plaintiff and Class Members were on a call that extended 45  minutes past the end of their shift, they would only be paid for 15 minutes of that call and  would not be paid for the remaining 30 minutes.    42.  This rounding policy resulted in the Plaintiff and the Class Members  not being paid for all time worked.  Defendant’s policy was that the Plaintiff and Class  Members were to be “clocked out” at their scheduled end time for their shirt regardless of  whether they were still working.     44.  Defendant violated the law by not paying the Plaintiff and Class  Members for these daily rest breaks.  See 29 C.F.R. § 785.18.     45.  By not paying for the time worked as described above, Defendant  failed to pay for all hours worked.  The Plaintiff and Class Members routinely worked at  least 40 hours each week.  Thus, they are owed substantial overtime wages for the time  spent working over 40 hours each week that went unpaid.     46.  Defendant’s actions in this case were willful.  Defendant knew the  requirement to pay overtime at the rate of time and one half the regular rate of pay for all  hours worked over 40 in a workweek but intentionally and/or recklessly chose to  disregard the law.    47.  Plaintiff incorporates all allegations contained in the foregoing  paragraphs.   48.  Defendant’s practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Class  Members one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in  a workweek violates the law.  See 29 U.S.C. § 207.   50.  Due to its violations of the FLSA, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and  the FLSA Class Members for their unpaid overtime, an equal amount as liquidated  damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs.  51.  Plaintiff brings this suit as an FLSA collective action pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of all customer service representatives during the three-year  period prior to the filing of this Complaint to the present.   52.  Plaintiff has actual knowledge, through conversations with and  personal observation of other employees, that a class of similarly situated workers exists  who have been denied overtime pay by being subjected to the same illegal pay practices  described above.   54.  Defendant uses the same compensation structure regardless of the  supervisor of a particular Class Member.   55.  All customer service representatives perform the same job functions.   56.  The names and address of the Class Members of the collective action  are available from Defendant’s records.  The Class Members should be allowed to receive  notice via First Class Mail, email and via a website with basic information about the  lawsuit or by use of techniques and a form of notice similar to those customarily used in  representative actions.   57.  Although the exact amount of damages may vary among individual  Class Members, the damages for each individual can be easily calculated using a simple  formula.   58.  The class of similarly situated FLSA Class Members may be properly  defined as follows:  All current and former customer service representatives  at any time during the three-year period prior to the filing  of this Complaint up to the present.   60.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding  paragraphs.   61.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an  “employer” within the meaning of the NMMWA.  At all relevant times, Defendant has  employed and continues to employ, “employees,” including the New Mexico Class  Members and Plaintiff, within the meaning of the NMMWA.   62.  The NMMWA requires payment of one and one-half times the employee’s  regular rate for each hour worked per week over 40 hours.  N.M. STAT. ANN. § 50-4- 66.  Plaintiff brings his overtime claims arising under the NMMWA as a Rule  23 class action on behalf of the following class:  All current and former customer service representatives  in New Mexico at any time during the three-year period  prior to the filing of this Complaint up to the present.   67.  Although Plaintiff does not know the precise number of members of the  proposed class, Plaintiff believes there are more than 500.    68.  The members of the class are so numerous that their individual joinder is  impractical.    69.  The identity of the members of the New Mexico Class is readily discernible  from Defendant’s records.   70.  Plaintiff and the proposed New Mexico Class on one hand, and Defendant  on the other, have a commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedy sought,  namely back wages plus penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and the cost of this lawsuit.   72.  These and other common questions of law and fact, which are common to  the members of the class, predominate over any individual questions affecting only  individual members of the class.   73.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class because Plaintiff was  not paid overtime wages in accordance with New Mexico law, just as was done with  respect to the New Mexico Class Members.     74.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class because her interests do  not conflict with the interests of the class that he seeks to represent. Plaintiff has retained  competent counsel, highly experienced in complex class action litigation, and they intend  to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the class will be fairly and adequately  protected by Plaintiff and his counsel.    VIOLATION OF THE NEW MEXICO MINIMUM WAGE ACT   VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. § 207  