 Defendant specializes in flowback and well testing for oil and natural gas energy  producers throughout the United States, including Pennsylvania and Ohio. To complete their business  objectives, Defendant employed independent contractors.      Many of the individuals who worked for Defendant, were paid on a day-rate basis,  misclassified as independent contractors, and make up the proposed Putative Class. While the exact  job titles and job duties may differ, the Putative Class Members are and were subjected to the same or  similar illegal pay practices for similar work.  These so-called independent contractors were paid a flat  sum for each day worked, regardless of the number of hours that they worked that day (or in that  workweek) without any overtime pay for hours that they worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a  workweek.    As a Flowback Operator, Plaintiff spent his time operating and monitoring flowback  equipment as the fluid used to hydraulically fracture a shale formation was recovered from the well at  the surface.    The work Plaintiff performed was an essential and integral part of Defendant’s core  business.    While he was classified as an independent contractor, Defendant exercised control  over all aspects of his job.      Defendant did not require any substantial investment by Plaintiff or the Putative Class  Members for them to perform the work that was required.      Defendant determined Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members opportunity for  profit and loss.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not required to possess any unique or  specialized skillset (other than that maintained by all other employees in their respective position) to  perform their job duties.      Defendant and its clients controlled all the significant or meaningful aspects of the job  duties performed by Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.    Defendant and its clients determined the hours and locations Plaintiff and the Putative  Class Members worked, tools used, and rates of pay received.    Even though Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members often worked away from  Defendant’s offices without the presence of a direct supervisor employed by Defendant, Defendant  still controlled all aspects of Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members job activities by enforcing  mandatory compliance with Defendant and its client’s policies and procedures.    More often than not, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members utilized equipment  provided by Defendant and/or its clients to perform their job duties.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members did not provide the equipment he worked with on a daily basis.      Defendant and/or its clients made the large capital investments in buildings, machines,  equipment, tools, and supplied in the business in which Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members  worked.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not incur operating expenses like rent,  payroll, marketing, and insurance.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were economically dependent on Defendant  during their employment.    Defendant set Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members rates of pay, their work  schedules, and prohibited them from working other jobs for other companies while they were working  on jobs for Defendant.    Defendant directly determined Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members opportunity  for profit and loss.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members earning opportunities were based on the  number of days Defendant scheduled them to work.    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 other advanced degree.     Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not have any supervisory or management  duties.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members perform 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.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members also worked similar hours and were denied  overtime as a result of the same illegal pay practice.     Defendant’s policy of failing to pay their independent contractors, including Plaintiff  and the Putative Class Members, overtime violates the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Acts and PMWA because  these workers are, for all purposes, employees performing non-exempt job duties.    Because Plaintiff (and Defendant’s other independent contractors) 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.  VI.   Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs and alleges that the illegal pay practices  Defendant imposed on Plaintiff were likewise imposed on the Putative Class Members.    Numerous other individuals who worked with Plaintiff indicated they were improperly  classified as independent contractors, paid in the same manner, performed similar work, and were not  properly compensated for all hours worked as required by state and federal wage laws.    Based on his experiences and tenure with Defendant, Plaintiff is aware that  Defendant’s illegal practices were imposed on the Putative Class Members.    The Putative Class Members were all improperly classified as independent contractors  and not afforded the overtime compensation when they worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.    Defendant’s failure to pay wages and overtime compensation at the rates required by  state and/or federal law result from generally applicable, systematic policies, and practices which are  not dependent on the personal circumstances of the Putative Class Members.    Plaintiff’s experiences are therefore typical of the experiences of the Putative Class  Members.    The specific job titles or precise job locations of the Putative Class Members do not  prevent class or collective treatment.      Plaintiff has no interest contrary to, or in conflict with, the Putative Class Members.  Like each Putative Class Member, Plaintiff has an interest in obtaining the unpaid overtime wages  owed to them under state and/or federal law.    A class and collective action, such as the instant one, is superior to other available  means for fair and efficient adjudication of the lawsuit.     Absent this action, many Putative Class Members likely will not obtain redress of their  injuries and Defendant will reap the unjust benefits of violating the FLSA and applicable state labor  laws.    Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity  among the claims of individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.    The questions of law and fact common to the Putative Class Members predominate  over any questions affecting solely the individual members. Among the common questions of law and  fact are:  a.  Whether Defendant employed the Putative Class Members within the meaning  of the applicable state and federal statutes, including the FLSA, the Ohio Wage  Acts and PMWA;  b.  Whether the Putative Class Members were improperly misclassified as  independent contractors;  c.  Whether Defendant’s decision to classify the Putative Class Members as  independent contractors was made in good faith;   d.  Whether Defendant’s decision to not pay time and a half for overtime to the  Putative Class Members was made in good faith;   e.  Whether Defendant’s violation of the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Acts and PMWA  was willful; and   f.  Whether Defendant’s illegal pay practices were applied uniformly across the  nation to all Putative Class Members.    Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Putative Class Members. Plaintiff and  the Putative Class Members sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s illegal and uniform  employment policy.     Although the issue of damages may be somewhat individual in character, there is no  detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts. Therefore, this issue does not preclude  collective and class action treatment.  X. 