 Halliburton is an oil and natural gas company operating worldwide and throughout  the United States and employs oilfield personnel to carry out its work.    For example, Plaintiff worked exclusively for Halliburton from approximately April  2015 to March 2015 and October 2015 until February 2016 as an oilfield contractor/solids control  operator. Throughout his employment with Halliburton, he was classified as an independent  contractor and paid on a day-rate basis.      As an oilfield contractor/ solids control operator, his primary job duties included  maintaining and operating solids control equipment and rigging up and rigging down oilfield  equipment.  Halliburton typically scheduled Plaintiff to work 12 hour shifts, for as many as 7 days a  week.  Plaintiff worked well in excess of 40 hours each week while employed by Halliburton.    The work Plaintiff performed was an essential party of Halliburton’s core business.    During Plaintiff’s employment with Halliburton while he was classified as an  independent contractor, Halliburton and/or the company it contracted with exercised control over  all aspects of his job. Halliburton did not require any substantial investment by Plaintiff in order for  him to perform the work required of him. Halliburton determined Plaintiff’s opportunity for profit  and loss.  Plaintiff was not required to possess any unique or specialized skillset (other than that  maintained by all other individuals working in his same job position) to perform his job duties.   Plaintiff worked exclusively for Halliburton, while working for Halliburton.     Indeed, Halliburton and/or the company it contracted with controlled all of the  significant or meaningful aspects of the job duties performed by Plaintiff.    Halliburton ordered the hours and locations Plaintiff worked, tools used, and rates of  pay received.    No real investment was required of Plaintiff to perform his job.  More often than  not, Plaintiff utilized equipment provided by Halliburton and/or its client to perform his job duties.   Plaintiff did not provide the equipment he worked with on a daily basis.  Halliburton and/or its  clients made the large capital investments in buildings, machines, equipment, tools, and supplied in  the business in which Plaintiff worked.    Plaintiff did not incur operating expenses like rent, payroll, marketing, and insurance.    Plaintiff was economically dependent on Halliburton during his employment.    Halliburton set Plaintiff’s rates of pay, his work schedule, and prohibited him from  working other jobs for other companies while he was working on jobs for Halliburton.    Halliburton directly determined Plaintiff’s opportunity for profit and loss.  Plaintiff’s  earning opportunity was based on the number of days Halliburton scheduled him to work.    Very little skill, training, or initiative was required of Plaintiff to perform his job  duties.    Plaintiff performed routine manual and technical labor duties that were largely  dictated by Halliburton and/or its clients.    Plaintiff was not employed by Halliburton on a project-by-project basis.  In fact,  while Plaintiff was classified as an independent contractor, he was regularly on call for Halliburton  and/or its clients and was expected to drop everything and work whenever needed.    All of 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.    The Putative Class Members also worked similar hours and were denied overtime as  a result of the same illegal pay practice. The Putative Class Members all worked in excess of 40  hours each week and were often scheduled for 12 hour shifts for weeks at a time. Instead of paying  them overtime, Halliburton paid the Putative Class Members a day-rate. Halliburton denied the  Putative Class Members overtime for any and all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single  workweek.     Halliburton’s policy of failing to pay its independent contractors, including Plaintiff,  overtime violates the FLSA because these workers are, for all purposes, employees performing non- exempt job duties.    It is undisputed that the Putative Class Members are maintaining and working with  oilfield machinery, performing manual labor, and working long hours out in the field.    Halliburton’s day-rate system violates the FLSA because Plaintiff and the other day- rate workers classified as independent contractors did not receive any pay for hours worked over 40  hours each week.  VI.   Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs and alleges that the illegal pay practices  Defendant imposed on Plaintiff were likewise imposed on the members of the Class.    Numerous individuals were victimized by this pattern, practice, and policy which is  in willful violation of the FLSA.    Based on his experiences and tenure with Defendant, Plaintiff is aware that  Defendant’s illegal practices were imposed on the members of the Class.      The members of the Class were all improperly classified as independent contractors  and not afforded the overtime compensation when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.    Defendant’s failure to pay wages and overtime compensation at the rates required by  federal law result from generally applicable, systematic policies, and practices which are not  dependent on the personal circumstances of the members of the Class.     Plaintiff’s experiences are therefore typical of the experiences of the members of the  Class.    The specific job titles or precise job locations of the various members of the Class  do not prevent class or collective treatment.      Plaintiff has no interests contrary to, or in conflict with, the members of the Class.  Like each member of the Class, Plaintiff has an interest in obtaining the unpaid overtime wages  owed 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 members of the Class likely will not obtain redress of their  injuries and Defendant will reap the unjust benefits of violating the FLSA.    Furthermore, even if some of the members of the Class could afford individual  litigation against Defendant, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.    The questions of law and fact common to each of the members of the Class  predominate over any questions affecting solely the individual members. Among the common  questions of law and fact are:  a.  Whether Defendant employed the members of the Class within the meaning  of the FLSA;  b.  Whether the members of the Class were improperly misclassified as  independent contractors;  c.  Whether Defendant’s decision to classify the members of the Class as  independent contractors was made in good faith;   d.  Whether Defendant’s decision to not pay time and a half for overtime to the  members of the Class was made in good faith;   e.  Whether Defendant’s violation of the FLSA was willful; and   f.  Whether Defendant’s illegal pay practices were applied uniformly across the  nation to all members of the Class.    Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiff and  the members of the Class sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s illegal and uniform  employment policy.     Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its ability to go forward as a collective action.    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 action treatment.  X. 