Defendant has employed in excess of 200 non-exempt Right of Way Agents who have been  subject to the same policies (payment of day rate, no salary, non-payment of overtime despite having the primary duty of performing non-exempt work) at all times relevant to this matter (since May 2011).  Defendant has violated §207(a) of the FLSA and the PMWA by failing to pay Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents, who have performed work in excess of forty (40) hours in workweeks since May 2011 at a rate of time-and-one-half (1½) their regular rate of pay for the overtime hours worked.  Prosecuting this case as a collective action under the FLSA and a class action under the PMWA for similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents who have been unlawfully denied overtime wages will promote judicial efficiency and will best protect the interest of the class members.  There are no conflicts of interest among the class members.    Counsel for the Representative Plaintiff, Joseph H. Chivers and John R. Linkosky, are  experienced in the field of employment law (including FLSA and PMWA wage claims), and collective/class actions, and will fairly and competently represent the interests of the class members.   The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable [numerosity]. - As noted above, there are in excess of 200 class members and it would be impractical - if not impossible - to join them all individually.   The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class [typicality]. - As noted above, the claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the other Right of Way Agents, i.e., failure to pay overtime in accordance with the FLSA/PMWA. The defenses to Plaintiff’s claims (proper classification as exempt) are typical of any defenses to the claims of the class.   The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [adequacy].  - As noted above, counsel for the representative Plaintiffs, Joseph H. Chivers and John R. Linkosky, are experienced in the field of wage and hour law, and collective/class actions, and will fairly and competently represent the interests of the class members.   In light of the above (numerosity, commonality, impracticability of joinder of separate actions), prosecuting this case as a collective/class action for similarly situated non- exempt Right of Way Agents who have been unlawfully denied overtime wages will promote judicial efficiency and will best protect the interests of the class members.   Common issues predominate.   A collective/class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy, and would avoid duplicative and potentially inconsistent or varying adjudications that could impair or impede the ability of either party to protect its interests.  Proof of liability for Defendant’s conduct depends on the conduct of Defendant, not on the conduct of the individual class members.   Defendant has acted on grounds that apply generally to the class of non-exempt Right of Way Agents, making declaratory relief appropriate respecting the class as a whole.   There are no conflicts of interest among the class members.   Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 57 of his Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein.  Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the FLSA and the PMWA.   Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents, are not paid a salary.   The primary duties of Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents, are non-exempt duties within the meaning of the FLSA and the PMWA.   These non-exempt primary duties are the result of common policies and practices applied by Defendant to Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents.  Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents, have worked in excess of 40 hours in workweeks since May 2011.  Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents, have been paid no overtime pay since May 2011.   Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents, have been subject to the same common policies and practices since May 2011.   Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents, are entitled to be paid overtime compensation at time-and-one-half (1½) their regular rate of pay pursuant to the FLSA and the PMWA for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in workweeks since May 2011.   Defendant has violated the FLSA and the PMWA by not paying Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents, overtime compensation at time-and- one-half their regular rate of pay in workweeks in which the non-exempt Right of Way Agents have worked more than 40 hours since May 2011.  Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt  Right of Way Agents, are  also, under the FLSA, entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid overtime.  Defendant has also failed to maintain accurate time records regarding Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated non-exempt Right of Way Agents, in accordance with 29 CFR §516.   Defendant’s failure to pay overtime at time-and-one-half (1½) the regular rate of pay, and to maintain accurate time records, is knowing and willful.  Defendant’s failure to pay overtime at time-and-one-half (1½) the regular rate of pay, and to maintain accurate time records, is a violation of the FLSA and the PMWA.   FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME (INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE/CLASS ACTION) 