(Class Action Alleging Violations of the PWMA)  A.  PMWA COVERAGE  119.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.  120.  The PMWA Class is defined as:  (Class Action Alleging Violations of the Ohio Acts)  A.  OHIO ACTS COVERAGE   (Collective Action Alleging FLSA Violations)  A.  FLSA COVERAGE    Rice Energy is an oil and natural gas company operating primarily in Pennsylvania  and Ohio in the Marcellus, Utica and Upper Devonian Shales.”3     To provide their services, Rice Energy employed numerous Completion  Consultants—including the individuals that make up the putative or potential class. While exact job  titles may differ, these employees were subjected to the same or similar illegal pay practices for  similar work in the oilfield.    Plaintiff Phillips has worked for Rice Energy as a Completion Consultant from  approximately March 2014 through the present.    Plaintiff Phillips has worked for Rice Energy in both Pennsylvania and Ohio.    Rice Energy paid Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members a day rate for each day  and all hours worked.     Specifically, Plaintiff Phillips was paid $1,100.00 per day worked in the field, but did  not receive overtime compensation at the required rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked  over forty (40) each workweek.    Although it is well-known that blue-collar oilfield workers like Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members are not exempt from overtime, Rice Energy did not pay Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members the additional overtime premium required by the FLSA for hours worked in  excess of forty (40) in a workweek.    Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members would  conduct their day-to-day activities within mandatory and designed parameters and in accordance  with pre-determined operational plans created by Rice Energy and/or its clients.    Upon further information and belief, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ daily  and weekly activities were routine and largely governed by standardized plans, procedures, and  checklists created by Rice Energy and/or its clients.     Virtually every job function was pre-determined by Rice Energy and/or its clients,  including the tools to use at a job site, the schedule of work, and related work duties. Plaintiff and  the Putative Class Members were prohibited from varying their job duties outside of the  predetermined parameters.     Moreover, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ job functions were primarily  routine and manual labor in nature, requiring little to no official training, much less a college  education or other advanced degree.    Indeed, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are blue-collar workers. They rely  on their hands, physical skills, and energy to perform manual and routine labor in the oilfield.     Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not)  include managerial responsibilities or the exercise of independent discretion or judgment.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not (and currently do not) have the  authority to hire or fire other employees, and they were not (and currently are not) responsible for  making hiring or firing recommendations.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not)  concern work directly related to the management or general business operations of Rice Energy or  its customers.    Rice Energy determined the hours Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked.      Rice Energy set Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ pay and controlled the  number of days (and hours) they worked.    Rice Energy set all employment-related policies applicable to Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members.     Rice Energy maintained control over pricing and marketing. Rice Energy also chose  equipment and product suppliers.    Rice Energy owned or controlled the equipment and supplies that Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members used to perform their work.    Rice Energy had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.     Rice Energy made all personnel and payroll decisions with respect to Plaintiff and  the Putative Class Members, including but not limited to, the decision to pay Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members an hourly wage with no overtime pay.     Rice Energy reimbursed Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for expenses and  bought or provided tools and equipment that Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members used.     Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not employ their own workers.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked continuously for Rice Energy on a  permanent full-time basis.     Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members relied on Rice Energy for their work.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not market any business or services of their own.  Instead, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked the hours assigned by Rice Energy,  performed duties assigned by Rice Energy, worked on projects assigned by Rice Energy, and worked  for the benefit of Rice Energy and its customers.    Rice Energy paid Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members on a weekly basis.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not earn a profit based on any business investment of  their own. Rather, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ only earning opportunity was based on  the number of days (and hours) they were allowed to work, which was controlled by Rice Energy  and/or its customers.    Rice Energy improperly classified Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as  independent contractors. The classification was improper because Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members were not in business for themselves. Instead, they were economically dependent upon  Rice Energy for their work.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not)  include managerial responsibilities or the exercise of independent discretion or judgment.    The FLSA, the Ohio Acts and the PMWA mandate that overtime be paid at one and  one-half times an employee’s regular rate of pay.     Under the Ohio Acts overtime shall be paid in the manner and methods provided in  and subject to the exemptions of section 7 and section 13 of the FLSA. O.R.C. § 4111.03(A).    Rice Energy denied Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members overtime pay as a result  of a widely applicable, illegal pay practice. Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked  in excess of forty (40) hours per week but never received overtime compensation.    Rice Energy applied this pay practice despite clear and controlling law that states that  the manual labor/technical, routine duties which were performed by Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members consisted of non-exempt work.    Accordingly, Rice Energy’s pay policies and practices blatantly violated (and continue  to violate) the FLSA, the Ohio Acts and the PMWA.  V.   All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.    The FLSA Collective is defined as:   All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.    Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this collective claim is made on behalf of all those  who are (or were) similarly situated to Plaintiff.    Other similarly situated employees have been victimized by Rice Energy’s patterns,  practices, and policies, which are in willful violation of the FLSA.    The FLSA Collective Members are defined in Paragraph 59.    Rice Energy’s failure to pay any overtime compensation results from generally  applicable policies and practices, and does not depend on the personal circumstances of the  individual FLSA Collective Members.    Thus, Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the experiences of the FLSA Collective  Members.    The specific job titles or precise job requirements of the various FLSA Collective  Members does not prevent collective treatment.    All of the FLSA Collective Members—regardless of their specific job titles, precise  job requirements, rates of pay, or job locations—are entitled to be properly compensated for all  hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.    Rice Energy employed a substantial number of similarly situated workers since  August 31, 2014. Upon information and belief, these workers are geographically dispersed, residing  and working in locations across the United States. Because these workers do not have fixed work  locations, they may work in different states across the country in the course of a given year.    Absent a collective action, many members of the proposed FLSA collective likely  will not obtain redress of their injuries and Rice Energy will retain the proceeds of its rampant  violations.    Moreover, individual litigation would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.  Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among the  claims of the individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.    Accordingly, the FLSA collective of similarly situated plaintiffs should be certified as  defined as in Paragraph 59 and notice should be promptly sent.    All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.    The Ohio Acts Class is defined as: 