(Plaintiff Ceballos and the Tennessee Class against All Defendants except Javier  Martinez Drywall and Javier Martinez)  176.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.   177.  There is no legally enforceable express contract between the parties.   178.  Plaintiff Ceballos and the Tennessee Class provided valuable labor and services to  Defendants in Tennessee. Defendants retained the benefits of this labor and these services  without compensating Plaintiff Ceballo and the Tennessee Class for the value of this labor and  services, which includes hourly wages and overtime premiums required by law for hours worked  in excess of 40 hours per week.   179.  Under the circumstances, the parties reasonably understood that Plaintiff Ceballo  and the Tennessee Class expected to be paid their legal wages.   180.  It would be unjust for Defendants to retain the benefits of the value of this labor  and these services without compensating Plaintiff Ceballo and the Tennessee Class for them.   24.  In the period between September 2015 and the present, Plaintiffs entered into  employment relationships with Circle Group, LA Drywall, Javier Martinez Drywall, Gulf Coast  Construction, Jose Mendiola, Jesus Ornelas, and Javier Martinez to provide drywall labor at the  SkyHouse Denver project.    25.  All Plaintiffs were recruited and hired by LA Drywall and its agents for the  purpose of working on Circle Group’s contract at the SkyHouse Denver site.     26.  The role and functions of Javier Martinez Drywall at the SkyHouse Denver site  considerably overlapped with the role and functions of LA Drywall. After she was recruited to  work at least one worker was “switched” from Javier Martinez Drywall to LA Drywall. This  formal change did not alter her day-to-day employment.     28.  Some members of the Colorado Class lived in housing provided by LA Drywall.  Often this housing took the form of cramped trailers. LA Drywall, Circle Group, and Gulf Coast  Construction deducted rent payments from wages for those who lived in housing provided by LA  Drywall.    29.  Other Plaintiffs and some members of the Colorado Class lived in Denver before  beginning work at the SkyHouse Denver project. LA Drywall and Javier Martinez Drywall  recruited these members through the Internet and word of mouth.    30.  Plaintiffs’ work involved various aspects of the drywall mounting process. This  work included drywall, framing, and clean-up work related to drywall installation.    31.  While working on the SkyHouse Denver site, Plaintiffs were managed and  supervised by agents of LA Drywall, Javier Martinez Drywall, and Circle Group.    32.  Circle Group, LA Drywall, and Javier Martinez Drywall agents together told  Plaintiffs when they needed to arrive at work and when they could leave work each day.   Plaintiffs were not free to come and go as they pleased.    33.  Each day Plaintiffs reported to work, they signed in on sheets provided by LA  Drywall, Javier Martinez Drywall, and Circle Group.     35.  On other occasions, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated signed time sheets for  both LA Drywall and Circle Group on the same day.    36.  Circle Group, LA Drywall, and Javier Martinez agents jointly supervised  Plaintiffs’ day-to-day work, including by telling Plaintiffs what floor to work on and what their  responsibilities were for any given day.    37.  The work Plaintiffs performed for Circle Group, LA Drywall, and Javier Martinez  Drywall was integral to the businesses of Circle Group, LA Drywall, and Javier Martinez  Drywall because the principal purpose of these businesses is the installation of drywall, which  cannot be done drywall installers like the Plaintiffs.   38.  Plaintiffs did not exercise any managerial control that affected an opportunity for  profit or loss. Plaintiffs reported to work when Circle Group, LA Drywall, and Javier Martinez  Drywall (and their agents) told them to report to work, and they left work when Circle Group and  LA Drywall told them they could leave work.    39.  Many Plaintiffs did not have significant experience working in drywall before  beginning their work on the SkyHouse Denver project, and some Plaintiffs did not have any  drywall experience before starting work on the SkyHouse Denver project.    41.  On various occasions, when they complained about underpayment of wages,  Plaintiffs complained to LA Drywall, Javier Martinez Drywall, and Circle Group. In some cases  both LA Drywall and Circle Group told them that they would receive their wages.    42.  When Plaintiffs and others similarly situated complained about their wages they  often complained to the agents of Circle Group and LA Drywall. Agents of Circle Group and LA  Drywall were aware that Plaintiffs were not being paid their legal wages but continued to make  assurances that they would receive their legal wages while frequently becoming angry and  dismissive about Plaintiffs’ complaints.    43.  Circle Group, LA Drywall and their agents habitually reduced the wages of  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in response to their complaints about Defendants’ failure  to pay legal wages.    44.  When Plaintiffs received wages for their work on the SkyHouse Denver project,  those wages came in the form of checks from Gulf Coast Construction.   B. SkyHouse Nashville Project: Plaintiff Ceballos and others similarly situated were  employed by Circle Group, LA Drywall, and Gulf Coast Construction.     45.  In 2015, Plaintiff Ceballos entered into an employment relationship with Circle  Group, LA Drywall, and Gulf Coast Construction to provide drywall labor in a large  development project in Nashville.    46.  LA Drywall recruited Plaintiff Ceballos for the Nashville project through  Ceballos’s family member.     48.  During his work in Nashville, Plaintiff Ceballos was supervised by Circle Group  and LA Drywall, which provided drywall labor for the SkyHouse Nashville project. Circle  Group instructed him where and when to show up and what tasks to perform each day.    49.  During his work in Nashville, Plaintiff Ceballos did not have control over his  hours or his work. He was dependent on Circle Group and LA Drywall for his assignments,  instructions, and pay.    50.  Circle Group and LA Drywall closely and directly supervised Plaintiff Ceballos’s  work in Nashville.    51.  After he completed his work on the in Nashville, LA Drywall and Circle Group  told Plaintiff Ceballos that he could report to Denver for more work.    52.  When Plaintiff had not received all of his wages for his work in Tennessee, he  was told he should complain to LA Drywall and its agents.    53.  He complained to Defendants Mendiola and Ornelas. But he was never paid all of  his legal wages.    54.  When Plaintiff Ceballos received wages for his work on the Nashville project  those wages came in the form of a check from Gulf Coast Construction.   C. Defendants’ Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked & Failure to Pay Overtime for Hours  Worked in Excess of 40 Hours Per Week   56.  No matter how many hours they worked, Plaintiffs were never paid overtime  premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. When they were paid for their work,  they were paid the same wage for every hour they worked during the week.    57.  Plaintiffs were also frequently denied pay entirely for some of the hours they  worked. For example, Plaintiff Salas was routinely denied pay for exactly 10 hours of work  performed during the course of a week on the SkyHouse Denver project. Plaintiff Solis was  denied pay for over 100 hours of work.    58.  When Plaintiffs complained to either Circle Group, LA Drywall, and Javier  Martinez Drywall about their failure to pay wages, Circle Group, LA Drywall, and Javier  Martinez Drywall often informed Plaintiffs that they would receive pay soon. In many cases,  however, Plaintiffs did not receive their pay. And when they did receive wages, they never  received overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.   59.  On at least one occasion, an Defendant Ornelas, an LA Drywall agent, informed  Plaintiff Salazar that “they” had 1000 employees and “only one person doing payroll.”  Therefore, LA Drywall’s agent explained, Plaintiff would have to be patient but would  ultimately receive his wages. Plaintiff never received all of his wages and never received any  overtime pay notwithstanding that he frequently worked more than 40 hours per week.    60.  Defendant Ornelas agent seems to have been referring to Circle Group’s payroll  practices.   D. Defendants’ Businesses   62.  During their work for Defendants, Plaintiffs’ work involved interstate commerce.  Plaintiffs handled goods, tools, and materials transmitted in interstate commerce, and worked  with employees who had moved for the purpose of working for Defendants or had themselves  moved to work for Defendants.    63.  Defendants’ operations are highly interrelated, because Defendants work together  on multiple construction projects around the U.S., for which they jointly recruit and supervise  employees to perform drywall services (Defendants’ primary business). Defendants’ control of  labor relations is centralized, with payroll for all employees of Defendants coming from  Defendant Gulf Coast Construction. Defendants share common managers who jointly supervise  the work of employees and who direct that work on behalf of all Defendants interchangeably.      64.  Defendants are joint employers of all Plaintiffs, except that Defendant Javier  Martinez Drywall and Defendant Javier Martinez are not joint employers of Plaintiffs or class  members working outside Colorado. Each Defendant had a major role in controlling Plaintiffs’  work on a day-to-day basis, including hiring, work assignments, provision of housing, tools,  safety training, and transportation, direction of work through supervisors, and decisions about  how many of Plaintiffs’ hours of work would be compensated and how and when Plaintiffs  would be paid.   E. Defendants Knew or Should Have Known That Plaintiffs Were Entitled to Minimum  Wage, Overtime, and Pay for all of the Hours they Worked   66.  Plaintiffs were subject to the daily and direct supervision and control of  Defendants. But Plaintiffs did not receive pay for all of the hours they worked and never  received overtime pay.    67.  At least some Plaintiffs and putative class members complained to Defendants  about the underpayment of wages. Notwithstanding these complaints, Defendants continued to  deny Plaintiffs and putative class members pay for all of the hours they worked and, as a routine  policy, denied Plaintiffs overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.    68.  On some occasions Defendants even punished Plaintiffs who complained about  not receiving wages by paying those Plaintiffs less.   69.  Plaintiffs Solis worked as Cleaner/Laborers for Defendants at SkyHouse Denver.    70.  Female workers were assigned to “Cleaner/Laborer” positions when they applied  for work, and were not given the opportunity to work as Drywallers.   71.  Plaintiff Solis was hired by Defendant Jesus “Chuy” Ornelas.     72.  Upon information and belief, no women worked as Drywallers at SkyHouse  Denver project, because Defendants refused to hire women to work as Drywallers.    73.  Male employees without drywall experience were hired by Defendants to work as  Drywallers at SkyHouse Denver project.   75.  Ms. Solis received paychecks from Defendant Gulf Coast Construction.    76.  Cleaner/Laborer employees were paid less than Drywallers.    77.  Working as a Cleaner/Laborer was heavier, more physically demanding work  than working as a Drywaller.  Cleaner/Laborers had to lift heavy pieces of drywall and other  debris and make constant trips to throw the debris into the dumpster.  They also had to scrape  debris off the floor.     78.  Jeff told the Ms. Solis and other employees that women were better at hard work  than men, and that was why he assigned women to Cleaner/Laborer positions, which he felt were  the best place for women.   79.  Although most Cleaner/Laborers were female, a handful of men were assigned to  work as Cleaner/Laborers as well.    80.  These men had identical duties to the Female Named Plaintiffs.   81.  Upon information and belief, these men requested this assignment but would have  been allowed to work as Drywallers if they chose.     82.  Upon information and belief, male Cleaner/Laborers were paid more per hour and  were paid their correct wages more often than Ms. Solis.     83.  Upon information and belief, white female Cleaner/Laborers were paid more per  hour and were paid their correct wages more often than Ms. Solis.    85.  In a meeting of all employees working on drywall (including Drywallers,  Cleaner/Laborers, and supervisors), a supervisor named Stuart said that based on his religion,  women shouldn’t be working in construction.    86.  Female workers were catcalled and asked on dates by men at SkyHouse Denver  project.     87.  Jeff mocked Plaintiff Solis for being a “poor Mexican” when she demanded  wages owed to her.    88.  Jeff frequently had angry and violent outbursts towards Hispanic/Mexican-born  workers.    89.  Ms. Houston often called Hispanic/Mexican-born workers “stupid,” “mensa,”  “tonto,” or “donkeys,” yelled at them, and made fun of them for not speaking English.   90.  Plaintiff Solis left her employment due to an injury on or about November 9,  2015.  91.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if  fully re-written herein.   92.  Plaintiffs assert their Counts III-VI as a Fed R. Civ P. 23 class action on their own  behalf and on behalf of classes for which they seek certification.    93.  Pending any modifications necessitated by discovery, Plaintiffs preliminarily  define a class (the “Rule 23 Nationwide Class”) as follows:  A. SkyHouse Denver Project: Plaintiffs were employed by Circle Group, LA Drywall,  Javier Martinez Drywall, Gulf Coast Construction, Jose Mendiola, Jesus Ornelas, and  Javier Martinez.    