10.  Defendant, a large health system operating in North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia,  and South Carolina, owns and operates 14 hospitals and more than 500 Physician clinic locations,  including outpatient surgery centers, medical plazas, rehabilitation programs, diagnostic imaging  centers, and community health outreach programs.   11.  Plaintiffs are individuals who have worked for Defendant as hourly-paid medical  workers. As an RN, Representative Plaintiff provided and assisted in the medical treatment of  patients.    12.  Amongst other things, medical workers all shared similar job titles, training, job  descriptions and job tasks. Importantly, medical workers were all paid less than time and one half  (1½) their hourly rate of pay for all time worked over 40 hours per week.   14.  Medical workers were all compensated on an hourly basis. Representative Plaintiff  was initially paid approximately $28.70 an hour, and then $30.99 following a raise in early 2018.  When Representative Plaintiff worked overtime, she was compensated at insufficient and unlawful  rates paying her anywhere from $0.70 to $1.10 in addition to her regular rate of pay. Representative  Plaintiff was told that Defendant did not pay overtime as a matter of policy because Defendant  needed to keep its costs under budget.    15.  Despite the fact that Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical  workers did not meet any test for exemption, Defendant failed to pay her and others the requisite  overtime rate of 1½ times their regular rate for all hours worked more than 40 hours per week  (“Overtime Hours”).  Medical workers Routinely Worked Overtime Hours   Without Being Paid Overtime Premium Compensation   16.  Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical workers routinely  worked Overtime Hours but were not paid the correct overtime premium compensation of time  and one half (1½) required by the FLSA.   17.  Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical workers often worked  multiple shifts each week without taking meal breaks. Representative Plaintiff and other similarly  situated medical workers frequently worked more than their scheduled shifts, especially during  busy periods or when there were shortages on a shift.    19.  Rather, Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical workers were  paid unlawful rates, all of which were significantly less than time and one half (1½) their regular  rate of pay.    20.  Defendant knew, and was aware at all times, of the above-mentioned violations.   21.  The conduct alleged above reduced Defendant’s labor and payroll costs.   22.  Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical workers were subject  to Defendant’s uniform policies and practices and were victims of Defendant’s schemes to deprive  them of overtime compensation. As a result of Defendant’s improper and willful failure to pay  Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical workers in accordance with the  requirements of the FLSA, Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical workers  suffered lost wages and other related damages.  Defendants Made Automatic Deductions for Meal Breaks, Including Those Not Taken,   23.  Defendant maintains a written policy promising medical workers one 30-minute  unpaid meal break and one 15-minute personal break per shift, to be taken when time allows.  Defendant was obligated to ensure either that medical workers were completely relieved from all  work-related duties during their unpaid meal break, or that they accurately tracked and recorded  both their missed and interrupted meal breaks and received all wages due for all missed and  interrupted meal breaks.    24.  Defendant requires medical workers to prioritize their work-related responsibilities  over their entitlement to an uninterrupted meal break.    26.  Defendant does not maintain adequate staffing levels or provide dedicated relief  workers to ensure medical workers are completely relieved from work-related duties during their  entire unpaid meal break.    27.  While Defendant has a system capable of allowing medical workers to track or  report their interrupted or unused meal breaks, Defendant requires Representative Plaintiff and  other similarly situated medical workers to forgo this procedure in order to keep the Defendant  within its annual budget.  Representative Plaintiff is actively discouraged from tracking or  reporting her interrupted or unused meal break.   28.  Defendant knows that Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical  workers regularly experience interrupted meal breaks because: Defendant maintains policies,  practices and procedures that require medical workers to prioritize their patient care duties over  their ability to take an uninterrupted meal break; Defendant has ready access to staffing, patient  census and patient acuity information suggesting medical workers are regularly unable to take a  full meal break; Defendant’s managers assign, oversee, or are responsible for the work Medical  workers do during meal breaks; medical workers routinely perform meal break work in plain sight  on Defendant’s premises; and medical workers perform work (like administering medication,  completing electronic forms, or making CAT scans) that creates a readily-available time record  during meal periods.   29.  Despite having both actual and constructive knowledge that medical workers  routinely work through meal breaks, Defendant has continued to direct its employees to forgo  accurately tracking their unused and interrupted meal breaks.    31.  Plaintiffs have been harmed as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s  unlawful conduct, because Defendant regularly and consistently deprives Representative Plaintiff  and other similarly situated medical workers of overtime wages owed for meal break work they  perform in workweeks of 40 hours or more.    32.  For all the reasons stated above, Representative Plaintiff and other similarly  situated medical workers are similarly situated individuals within the meaning of the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. §216(b).   Defendant Willfully Violated the FLSA    34.  Representative Plaintiff brings this collective action on behalf of herself and all  others similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to recover unpaid overtime wages,  liquidated damages, and other damages related to Defendant’s violation of the FLSA.    36.   The Representative Plaintiff is a member of the Class she seeks to represent  because she was employed by Defendant during the relevant period, was routinely suffered or  permitted to work more than 40 hours per week, as described above, and was not paid an overtime  premium rate for the time she worked over 40 hours per week.   37.  Specifically, Defendant engaged in common schemes to avoid paying  Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical workers overtime pay of time and one  half (1½) when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, even though Plaintiffs did not satisfy  the necessary conditions exempting them from overtime.   38.  Additionally, Representative Plaintiff was routinely suffered or permitted to work  through her automatically deducted meal break without being properly compensated for the time  she worked.   40.  Defendant encouraged, suffered and permitted Representative Plaintiff and other  similarly situated medical workers to work more than forty (40) hours per week without proper  overtime compensation.   41.  Defendant encouraged, suffered and permitted Representative Plaintiff and other  similarly situated medical workers to work through their automatically deducted meal break  without proper compensation.   42.  Defendant knew Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical  workers performed work that required additional wages and overtime compensation to be paid.  Nonetheless, Defendant operated under a scheme, as previously described, to deprive  Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical workers of wages and overtime  compensation.    43.  Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein was willful and has caused extensive damage  to the Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical workers.   45.  Representative Plaintiff estimates that the collective class, including both current  and former employees over the relevant period, will include at least one hundred (100) members.  The precise number of collective Class Members should be readily available from Defendant’s  personnel, scheduling, time and payroll records, and from input received from the Class Members  as part of the notice and “opt-in” process provided by 29 U.S.C. §216(b). Given the composition  and size of the collective class, its members may be informed of the pendency of this action directly  via U.S. mail and e-mail.  46.  Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 23”),  Representative Plaintiff brings claims for relief on her own behalf and as a representative a class  under the NCWHA, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.1 et seq., to recover unpaid wages, statutory penalties,  prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other damages related to Defendant’s violation  of the NCWHA.    47.  Representative Plaintiff seeks class certification under Rule 23 for the following  class under the NCWHA:  All individuals who currently work, or have worked, for the Defendant  as an hourly paid medical worker or any other similarly-titled, hourly- paid position in the state of North Carolina during the applicable  statute of limitations period who were not timely paid all earned wages  on their regular paydays (the “NCWHA Class”).   49.  Upon information and belief, Representative Plaintiff estimates that there are at  least (40) putative class members in the NCWHA Class.  The precise number of NCWHA Class  members can be easily ascertained using Defendant’s personnel, time, and payroll records and  other records.  Commonality   50.  There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to the  NCWHA Class members, including, without limitation, the following:  a.  Whether Defendant failed to pay the NCWHA Class all earned accrued  wages on their regular paydays;   b.  Whether Defendant maintained common timekeeping and payroll systems  and policies with respect to the NCWHA Class, regardless of their work  location;  c.  Whether Defendant failed to keep true and accurate records of the amount  of time the NCWHA Class actually worked;  d.  Whether Defendant willfully or recklessly disregarded the law in  implementing its wage and hour policies applicable to the NCWHA Class;  and,  e.  The nature and extent of the class-wide injury and the appropriate measure  of damages for the NCWHA Class.   51.  Representative Plaintiff anticipates that Defendant will raise defenses that are  common to the NCWHA Class.  Adequacy   53.  The claims asserted by the Representative Plaintiff are typical of the NCWHA  Class members she seeks to represent. The Representative Plaintiff has the same interests and  suffers as a result of the same unlawful practices as the NCWHA Class members.   54.  Upon information and belief, there are no other NCWHA Class members who  have an interest individually controlling the prosecution of his or her individual claims,  especially in light of the relatively small value of each claim and the difficulties involved in  bringing individual litigation against one’s employer. However, if any such class member  should become known, he or she can opt out of this action pursuant to Rule 23.  Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate and a Class Action is  Superior to Joinder of Claims or Individual Lawsuits   55.  The common questions identified above predominate over any individual issues  because Defendant’s conduct and the impact of its policies and practices affected NCWHA Class  members in the same manner: they were suffered and/or permitted to work without receiving all  earned wages on their regular paydays.    57.  On the other hand, important public interests will be served by addressing the  matter as a class action. The cost to the court system and the public for the adjudication of  individual litigation and claims would be substantial and substantially more than if claims are  treated as a class action. Prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would  create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of  conduct for Defendant, and/or substantially impair or impede the ability class members to  protect their interests. The issues in this action can be decided by means of common, class-wide  proof. In addition, if appropriate, the Court can and is empowered to, fashion methods to  efficiently manage this action as a class action.  58.  Each of the preceding paragraphs is incorporated by reference as though fully set  forth herein.   59.  Defendant operates an “enterprise” as defined by Section 3(r)(1) of the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. § 203(r)(1), and is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within  the meaning of Section 3(s)(1)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).   60.  Representative Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective are similarly  situated employees within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   61.  Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA states that an employee must be paid an overtime  rate equal to at least one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked  in excess of 40 hours per week.   63.  Throughout the relevant period, Defendant violated the FLSA by routinely  suffering or permitting Representative Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective to work  overtime hours without paying them proper overtime compensation.    64.  Throughout the relevant period, Representative Plaintiff and members of the FLSA  Collective worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but were not paid an overtime premium of one  and one-half times their regular hourly rate for those additional hours.   65.  Representative Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective are not properly  classified as exempt.   66.  Throughout the relevant period, Defendant expected Plaintiffs and the Class  members to be available to work during their promised meal break and after completion of their  assigned shift for work-related tasks.     67.  Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, as described herein, have been willful and  intentional. Defendant failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with respect to  the compensation of Representative Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective.   68.  Because Defendant’s violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year statute  of limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.   70.  As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Representative Plaintiff and members  of the FLSA Collective have been deprived of overtime compensation and other wages in amounts  to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages,  prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  71.  Each of the preceding paragraphs is incorporated by reference as though fully set  forth herein.   72.  Representative Plaintiff is a member of the NCWHA Class, which meets the  requirements for certification and maintenance of a class action pursuant to Rule 23.   73.  It is unlawful under North Carolina law for an employer to require or permit an  employee to work without paying compensation for all hours worked in violation of N.C. Gen.  Stat. § 95-25.6.   74.  Defendant failed to pay Representative Plaintiff and the NCWHA Class members  all accrued wages on the employees’ regular paydays for all hours worked.    75.  Defendant’s conduct constitutes a willful violation of the NCWHA, N.C. Gen. Stat.  § 95-25.1 et seq., including but not limited to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.6 and § 95-25.7.    76.  Representative Plaintiff and the NCWHA Class members have sustained losses in  compensation as a proximate result of Defendant’s violations of the NCWHA. Accordingly,  Representative Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the NCWHA Class members, seeks damages in  the amount of their unpaid earned compensation, plus liquidated damages and interest at the legal  rate set for in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.22(a) and (a)(1).   CLASS ACTION VIOLATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA WAGE AND HOUR ACT   COLLECTIVE ACTION VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  