 Plaintiff worked as a Utilization Review Employee for Defendant  within the last three years.     Utilization Review Employees’ job duties were routine and rote and did  not include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to  matters of significance. Utilization Review Employees’ duties and responsibilities  did not involve the management of the enterprise or any particular department, and  Plaintiff did not direct the work of other employees. Nor were any Utilization  Review Employees involved in setting the management policies or general business  operations of Defendant or its patients.      The minimum clinical certification required to perform the Utilization  Review Work performed by Plaintiff is Licensed Practical Nurse (“LPN”) or  Licensed Vocational Nurse (“LVN”) credentials. In fact, URAC Health Plan  Accreditation Guidelines explicitly provide that an “LPN/LVN meets the URAC  definition of health professional and this licensure category may conduct initial  clinical review.”3   29 U.S.C. § 216(b) COLLECTIVE ACTION  VIOLATION OF FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.  FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES    Although Plaintiff and other Utilization Review Employees were  licensed nurses, they were not certified nurse midwives, nurse anesthetists, or nurse  practitioners. Defendant employed Utilization Review Employees, including  Plaintiff, who held LPN licensure, but no other clinical licensure such as a Registered  Nurse license.    During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Defendant required  Plaintiff and other Utilization Review Employees to perform their job duties in  accordance with its corporate policies, procedures, guidelines, and guidelines  embedded in Defendant’s computer software.    The policies, procedures and guidelines followed by Plaintiff and other  Utilization Review Employees in performing Utilization Review Work were  designed to comply with the accreditation guidelines for a national accreditation  organization, the NCQA.4    During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s and other  Utilization Review Employees’ job duties did not involve creating or drafting  corporate policies, procedures or guidelines pertaining to Utilization Review Work.   In fact, during Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff’s job duties did not  involve creating or drafting any corporate policies, procedures or guidelines of any  kind for Defendant or its employees.     Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other Utilization Review  Employees as exempt employees for the purposes of the FLSA. Defendant paid  Plaintiff and other Utilization Review Employees a salary, at the same amount of  compensation each week, regardless of the number of hours they worked each week  during their employment. When Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in individual  workweeks, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime at one-and-one-half times the  “regular rate” at which she was employed.    As non-exempt employees, Defendant’s Utilization Review Employees  were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked. Under the FLSA,  employees are entitled to “not less than one and one-half times the regular rate” at  which they are employed for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. 29 U.S.C.  § 207(a)(1). The “regular rate” shall be deemed to include bonuses, commissions,  nondiscretionary incentive compensation and other remuneration paid to the  employee. 29 U.S.C. § 207(e).    When Plaintiff and Utilization Review Employees worked over 40  hours in one or more individual workweeks, Defendant did not pay them overtime  at one-and-one-half times the “regular rate” at which they were employed.  C.  Defendant Benefited from the Uncompensated Overtime Work  and Suffered and Permitted it to Happen    At all relevant times, Defendant directed and directly benefited from  the Utilization Review Work performed by Plaintiff and the Utilization Review  Employees.    At all relevant times, Defendant controlled the work schedules, duties,  protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions of Plaintiff and the  Utilization Review Employees.    At all relevant times, Defendant was able to track the amount of time  Plaintiff and the Utilization Review Employees spent in connection with the  performance of their Utilization Review Work. However, Defendant failed to do so  and failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Utilization Review Employees  for the overtime work they performed.    Defendant expressly trained, instructed and permitted Plaintiff and the  Utilization Review Employees to perform more than 40 hours of Utilization Review  Work during numerous individual workweeks.    Because Plaintiff and the Utilization Review Employees typically  worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, Defendant’s policies and practices  deprived Plaintiff and the Utilization Review Employees of overtime wages for the  Utilization Review Work they performed    Defendant knew or should have known that the Utilization Review  Work performed by Plaintiff and the Utilization Review Employees did not qualify  for the FLSA’s administrative, executive or professional exemption. Indeed, given  the routine and rote nature of the Utilization Review Work, the lack of discretion  and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance, and the strict  guidelines the Utilization Review Employees were required to adhere to, there is no  conceivable way for Defendant to establish that its classification scheme was  enacted in good faith.    Despite knowing Plaintiff and the Utilization Review Employees  performed more than 40 hours of Utilization Review Work in numerous individual  workweeks, Defendant failed to make any effort to stop or disallow the overtime  work and instead suffered and permitted it to happen.    Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA  on her own behalf and on behalf of:  All similarly situated current and former Utilization Review  Employees who work or have worked for Defendant in the last  three years and who were paid a salary and classified as exempt  from overtime.   (hereinafter referred to as the “FLSA Collective”). Plaintiff reserves the right to  amend this definition if necessary.    Defendant is liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly  compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated Utilization Review Employees.      Excluded from the FLSA Collective are Defendant’s executive,  administrative and professional employees, including computer professionals and  outside salespersons.    Consistent with Defendant’s policy and pattern or practice, Plaintiff and  the FLSA Collective were not paid premium overtime compensation when they  worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek.    As part of its regular business practices, Defendant intentionally,  willfully and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice and/or policy of violating the  FLSA with respect to Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective. This policy and pattern or  practice includes, but is not limited to:  a.  Willfully misclassifying Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective as  exempt employees under the FLSA;  b.  Willfully failing to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective  premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours  per workweek; and  c.  Willfully failing to record all of the time that Plaintiff and the  FLSA Collective worked for the benefit of Defendant.    Defendant is aware or should have been aware that Plaintiff and the  FLSA Collective were non-exempt employees and that federal law required it to pay  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of  40 per workweek.    Defendant’s unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated and  consistent.    The employment relationships between Defendant and every proposed  FLSA Collective member are the same. The key issue – whether the Utilization  Review Work performed by Utilization Review Employees qualifies for the  professional, executive or administrative exemption – is identical among the  proposed FLSA Collective members.    Many similarly situated current and former Utilization Review  Employees have been underpaid in violation of the FLSA and would benefit from  the issuance of a court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join  it.     Court-supervised notice of this lawsuit should be sent to the FLSA  Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).    Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendant, are readily  identifiable, and can be located through Defendant’s personnel and payroll records.    Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.    At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was engaged in interstate  commerce, or in the production of goods for commerce, as defined by the FLSA.    At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective  were “employees” of Defendant within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1) of the  A.  Defendant Misclassified Its Utilization Review Employees  