Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
`C.K. Lee (CL 4086)
`Anne Seelig (AS 3976)
`148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
`New York, NY 10011
`Tel.: (212) 465-1188
`Fax: (212) 465-1181
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Nationwide FLSA Collective
`Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`CAI GUO and WEI CHEN
`on behalf of themselves, Nationwide FLSA
`Collective Plaintiffs and the Class,
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTENE CORPORATION,
`CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
`
`LLC,
`WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., and
`COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
`
`MANAGEMENT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs CAI GUO and WEI CHEN (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and others
`
`similarly situated, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this Class and
`
`Collective Action Complaint against Defendants, CENTENE CORPORATION, CENTENE
`
`MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS,
`
`INC.,
`
`and
`
`COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENT,
`
`INC.,
`
`(collectively “Defendants” or
`
`“Centene”), and state as follows:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs CAI GUO and WEI CHEN allege, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
`
`Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), that they and others similarly situated are
`
`entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages due to time-shaving, (2) unpaid overtime
`
`compensation, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff WEI CHEN alleges, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”),
`
`that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages
`
`due to time-shaving, (2) unpaid overtime compensation, (3) statutory penalties, (4) liquidated
`
`damages and (5) attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs WEI CHEN alleges that he and others similarly situated are entitled to
`
`recover from Defendants damages due to Defendants: (1) breach of contract, (2) negligent
`
`misrepresentation, (3) promissory fraud, and (5) unjust enrichment.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants operate a leading healthcare enterprise selling healthcare insurance
`
`products to individuals and families across the country. Defendants supply healthcare products
`
`to 1 in 15 Americans across all 50 U.S. states. See Exhibit A, Press Release of Defendants.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs and potential class members were all victims of Defendants’ scheme to
`
`underpay employees and avoid paying overtime. Defendants impermissibly induced extensive
`
`off-the-clock work with a policy of instituting excessive quotas on employees, which required
`
`overtime hours to complete. At the same time, Defendants maintained a procedure for
`
`requesting overtime requiring an employee to subject themselves to a productivity review and
`
`possible reprimand/termination. Moreover, employees of Defendants paid on commission were
`
`also victims of what is referred to as the “Open Enrollment Scandal” occurring in 2020.
`
`Defendants induced higher sales by distributing emails and paperwork promising higher
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`commission rates than were actually delivered to employees. Plaintiffs bring this wage and hour
`
`class action on behalf of themselves and all persons, who during the applicable limitations period
`
`up to and including the present, were similarly underpaid by Defendants in violation of
`
`protections afforded under the FLSA, parties’ contracts, laws of equity, and the laws and
`
`regulations passed in the District of Columbia and the following states:
`
`1) Alaska: Alaska Wage and Hour Act, Alaska Statute §23.10.050 et seq.;
`
`2) Arizona: Arizona Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act, A.R.S. § 23-340 et seq., and
`the Arizona Minimum Wage Act Practice and Procedure A.A.C. R20-5-1201 et seq.;
`
`3) Arkansas: Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-201, et seq.;
`
`4) California: California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-
`17210; and the California Labor Code and relevant Industrial Welfare Commission
`Wage Order;
`
`5) Colorado: Colorado Wage Claim Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-4-101 et seq., and the
`Colorado Minimum Wage Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-6-101 et seq.;
`
`6) Connecticut: Connecticut Wage Act Conn. Gen. Stat. §§31-58, et seq.;
`
`7) Delaware: Delaware Minim Wage Law, Delaware Code Title 19-90 et seq.;
`
`8) District of Columbia: District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act Revision Act, D.C.
`Code § 32-1001 et seq.;
`
`9) Florida: Florida’s Unpaid Wages Statute, Fla. Stat. 448.08 et seq.;
`
`10) Georgia: Georgia Minimum Wage Law, Official Code of Georgia Annotated
`O.C.G.A. § 34-4 et seq.;
`
`11) Hawaii: Hawaii Payment of Wages and other Compensation, Hawaii Revised Statutes
`Title 21 § 388-1 et seq.;
`
`12) Idaho: Idaho the Minimum Wage Law 44-1501 et seq., Hours Worked Act §44-1201
`et seq., and the Liens, Mortgages and Pledges, Idaho Code § 45-601 et seq.;
`
`13) Illinois: Illinois Labor Laws, 820 ILCS 105 et seq.;
`
`14) Indiana: Indiana Wages Hours and Benefits, Ind. Code §22-2-2 et seq. Indiana
`Frequency of Wage Payments Ind. Code §22-2-5 et seq.;
`
`15) Iowa: Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law, Iowa Code §91A et seq.;
`
`16) Kansas: Kansas Labor and Industries Law, Kan. Stat. Ann. §44-1201 et seq.;
`
`17) Kentucky: Kentucky Wage Statutes, K.Y. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 337.275 et seq.;
`
`18) Louisiana: Louisiana's Wage Payment Act, Louisiana Revised Statutes §23:631 et
`seq.;
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`19) Maine: Maine Employment Practices Act, 26 Me. Rev. Stat. §§ 621-A, 626, 626-A, &
`629, and the Maine Minimum Wage and Overtime Law, 26 Me. Rev. Stat. §§ 664 &
`670;
`
`20) Maryland: Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401 et
`seq., and the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law, Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 et seq.;
`
`21) Massachusetts: Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151, §1A
`et seq.;
`
`22) Michigan: Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, MCL §§ 408.411, et seq.;
`
`23) Minnesota: Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, Minn. Stat. § 177.25, and the
`Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.101 et seq.;
`
`24) Missouri: Missouri Minimum Wage Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 290.500 et seq.;
`
`25) Montana: Montana Minimum Wage and Overtime Compensation Act, MCA § 39-3-
`401 et seq., and the Montana Payment of Wages Law, MCA §39-3-201 et seq.;
`
`26) Nebraska: Nebraska’s Wage and Hour Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1201 et seq., and the
`Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1228 et seq.;
`
`27) Nevada: Nevada Minimum Wage Amendment of the Nevada Constitution, Nev.
`Const. art. 15, § 16, and the Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapt. 60,
`
`28) New Hampshire: New Hampshire Minimum Wage Law, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 279:1 et
`seq.;
`
`29) New Jersey: New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J.S.A. §§ 34:11-4.1 et seq.; and the
`New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. §§ 34:11-56a et seq.;
`
`30) New Mexico: New Mexico Minimum Wage Law, N.M. Stat. Ann. §50-4 et seq.;
`
`31) New York: New York Labor Law, Article 19 § 650 et seq., and Article 6 § 190 et
`seq.;
`
`32) North Carolina: North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, N.C.G.S. § 95-25.1, et seq.;
`
`33) North Dakota: North Dakota Labor and Employment Law., N.D. Cent. Code 34-01 et
`seq., and the North Dakota Minimum Wage and Work Conditions Order N.D. Ain
`Code §4602-07-01 et seq.;
`
`34) Ohio: Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. § 4111.01 et seq.;
`
`35) Oklahoma: Oklahoma General Wage Law, O.S. §§40-165.1. et seq.;
`
`36) Oregon: Oregon Minimum Wage Law, Oreg. Rev. Stat. §51-653, and the Oregon
`Rules Regulating Minimum Wage, Overtime and Working Conditions OAR 839-020-
`0000, et seq.;
`
`37) Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 333.101 et seq.;
`
`38) Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico Working Hours and Days Laws, 29 L.P.R.A. §§271, et seq.;
`
`39) Rhode Island: Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 28-12-1, et seq.,
`and the Rhode Island Wages Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 28-14-1, et seq.;
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`40) South Carolina: South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-10
`et seq.;
`
`41) South Dakota: South Dakota Labor and Employment Laws, S.D.C.L. 60-1-1, et seq.;
`
`42) Texas: Texas Minimum Wage Act, Texas Labor Code § 62.001 et seq.;
`
`43) Vermont: Vermont Wages and Medium of Payment Laws, 21 V.S.A. §§341, et seq.;
`
`44) Virginia: Virginia Minimum Wage Act, VA Code § 40.1 et seq.;
`
`45) Washington: Washington Minimum Wage Act, R.C.W. 49.46.005, et seq.; and
`Washington Minimum Wage Rules, WAC 296-126 et seq.;
`
`46) West Virginia: West Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Act, W. Va.
`Code §25-5C-1, et seq.;
`
`47) Wisconsin: Wisconsin Hours of Work and Overtime Rules, Wis. Admin. Code, §§
`DWD 272.01 et seq. and 274.01 et seq.; and
`
`48) Wyoming: Wyoming Minimum Wages, W.S. 1977 §§27-4-201, et seq. and
`Collection of Unpaid Wages, §§27-4-501, et seq.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff CAI GUO executed an individual general release as to all claims against
`
`Defendants on March 15, 2021. By the express terms of his agreement, excluded from the release is
`
`“any claim[] that the controlling law clearly states may not be released by private agreement.”
`
`Plaintiff CAI GUO advances his FLSA claims in this action as controlling law clearly states that
`
`FLSA claims may not be released by private agreement. The Supreme Court of the United States
`
`when interpreting “the FLSA [has] frequently emphasized the nonwaivable nature of an
`
`individual employee’s right to a minimum wage and to overtime pay under the Act.” Barrentine
`
`v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., 450 U.S. 728, 740, 101 S. Ct. 1437, 1445 (1981). The Court goes on to
`
`hold that FLSA rights cannot be waived by contract, and to allow for waiver or releases of FLSA
`
`claims would “nullify the purposes” of the statute. Id. Moreover, the Second Circuit itself has
`
`repeatedly reaffirmed this position. See Bormann v. AT & T Commc’ns, Inc., 875 F.2d 399, 401
`
`(2d Cir. 1989) (“[P]rivate waiver of claims under the [FLSA] has been precluded by such
`
`Supreme Court decisions as Brook. Sav. Bank, 324 U.S. 697, and D.A. Schulte, Inc., 328 U.S.
`
`108.”).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. § 216(b), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 and 1343, and has supplemental jurisdiction over
`
`Plaintiff WEI CHEN state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in the Southern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgement pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff CAI GUO is a resident of Kings County, New York.
`
`Plaintiff WEI CHEN is a resident of Richmond County, New York.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant CENTENE CORPORATION has wholly owned
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`and managed Defendant CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC.
`
`14.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC. has
`
`wholly owned and managed Defendant COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.
`
`15.
`
`On January 23, 2020, Defendant CENTENE CORPORATION acquired
`
`Defendant WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., and all its subsidiaries, becoming the parent
`
`corporation to all Defendants in this action. As of January 23, 2020, Defendant CENTENE
`
`CORPORATION has wholly owned and managed Defendants CENTENE MANAGEMENT
`
`COMPANY LLC, WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., and COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
`
`MANAGEMENT, INC.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant CENTENE CORPORATION is a foreign business corporation
`
`operating in New York and organized under the laws of Delaware. Its principal executive office
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`is located at 7700 Forsyth Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63105, and its address for service of process
`
`purposes is c/o CT Corporation System, 28 Liberty Street, New York, NY, 10005. Defendant
`
`CENTENE CORPORATION is registered to conduct business in New York.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Defendant CENTENE CORPORATION, is a foreign business corporation
`
`operating in New York and organized under the laws of Wisconsin. Its principal executive office
`
`is located at 7700 Forsyth Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63105, and its address for service of process
`
`purposes is c/o CT Corporation System, 28 Liberty Street, New York, NY, 10005. Defendant
`
`CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC is registered to conduct business in New York.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Defendant CENTENE CORPORATION, is a foreign business corporation operating in New
`
`York and organized under the laws of Florida. Its principal executive office is located at 7700
`
`Forsyth Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63105, and its address for service of process purposes is c/o CT
`
`Corporation System, 1200 South Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC. is a foreign
`
`business corporation operating in New York and organized under the laws of Florida. Its
`
`principal executive office is located at 7700 Forsyth Blvd, St. Louis, MO 63105, and its address
`
`for service of process purposes is c/o CT Corporation System, 28 Liberty Street, New York, NY,
`
`10005. Defendant COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC. is registered to
`
`conduct business in New York.
`
`20.
`
`Centene maintains offices and hires employees throughout the entire United
`
`States, including offices in the following: Alabama (1), Arizona (6), Arkansas (1), California
`
`(31), Connecticut (4), Delaware (1), Florida (20), Georgia (3), Hawaii (1), Illinois (1), Iowa (1),
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`Kansas (3), Kentucky (6), Louisiana (4), Maine (1), Maryland (1), Massachusetts, Michigan (2),
`
`Minnesota (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), Nebraska, Nevada (2), New Hampshire (2), New
`
`Jersey (1), New Mexico (2), New York (5), North Carolina (4), Ohio (4), Oklahoma (1), Oregon
`
`(1), Pennsylvania (3), Rhode Island (1), South Carolina (2), Tennessee (2), Texas (9), Vermont,
`
`Washington (4), Wisconsin (3) (the “Centene” Offices”). See Exhibit B.
`
`21.
`
`The Centene Offices share common central management, Human Resources team,
`
`central payroll, and central marketing team.
`
`a) Each Centene Office location is engaged in the same business of providing
`insurance sales services.
`
`
`b) All the Centene Offices share the same trade name "Centene " with the same logo
`and are marketed jointly on one (1) common website: (https://centene.com/). See
`Exhibit B.
`
`c) The Centene Offices within New York State are commonly owned and operated
`by Centene.
`
`d) All Centene Offices share the common, corporate office address, common
`number, and vendor for employment verification. See Exhibit C.
`
`e) Job openings of Centene Offices in multiple states were posted on the same
`Webpage for prospective employees to apply. See also Exhibit D for the
`“Careers” Webpage.
`
`f) All Centene Offices share common social media accounts, including: Facebook,
`LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter.
`
`g) All Centene Offices share a common employee handbook. See Exhibit E.
`
`h) All Centene Offices share consolidated financials, which may be seen by
`Defendant WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC.’s 10-k filing with the SEC
`dated February 12, 2019, and Defendant CENTENE CORPORATION’s 10-k
`filing dated February 22, 2020.
`
`22.
`
`At all relevant times, the Defendant was and continues to be an “enterprise
`
`engaged in commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA, applicable state law, and the regulations
`
`thereunder.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`23.
`
`At all relevant times, the work performed by Plaintiff, Nationwide FLSA
`
`Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members was directly essential to the business operated by
`
`Defendant.
`
`NATIONWIDE FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29
`
`U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all non-managerial employees, who engaged or facilitated in the
`
`sales, consultation, enrollment and/or recertification of clients (including but not limited to all
`
`marketing sales associates, sales agents, consultant associates, benefit specialists and eligibility
`
`specialists throughout the United States) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is
`
`three (3) years before parties’ tolling agreement in this matter, which was fully executed on
`
`October 25, 2021 (“Nationwide FLSA Collective Plaintiffs”).
`
`25.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and Nationwide FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are
`
`and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay
`
`provisions, and are and have been subjected to Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans, programs,
`
`practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and
`
`refusal to pay them the proper overtime compensation at the rate of one and one half times the
`
`regular hourly rate for work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek due to a policy of time-
`
`shaving and improper overtime rates. The claims of Plaintiffs stated herein are essentially the
`
`same as those of Nationwide FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.
`
`26.
`
`The claims for relief are properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in
`
`collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Nationwide FLSA Collective
`
`Plaintiffs are readily ascertainable. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this
`
`action, their names and addresses are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`to the Nationwide FLSA Collective Plaintiffs via first class mail to the last address known to
`
`Defendants.
`
`RULE 23 CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiffs WEI CHEN bring claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-managerial employees who engaged or
`
`facilitated in the sales, consultation, enrollment and/or recertification of clients (including but not
`
`limited to all mark marketing sales associates, sales agents, consultant associates, benefit
`
`specialists and eligibility specialists throughout the United States or individual subclasses in
`
`other states thereof) employed by Defendants in the three (3) years – or the relevant statutory
`
`period pursuant to each states applicable laws of labor, laws regarding contract, and laws of
`
`equity – before parties’ tolling agreement in this matter, which was fully executed on October
`
`25, 2021. (the “Class Period”).
`
`28.
`
`All said persons, including Plaintiff WEI CHEN are referred to herein as the
`
`“Class” or “Class Members.” The Class Members are readily ascertainable. The number and
`
`identity of the Class Members are determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours
`
`assigned and worked, the position held, and the rates of pay for each Class Member are also
`
`determinable from Defendants’ records. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this
`
`action, their names and addresses are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided
`
`by means permissible under F.R.C.P. 23.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff WEI CHEN’s claims are typical of those claims, which could be alleged
`
`by any member of the Class, and the relief sought is typical of the relief, which would be sought
`
`by each member of the Class in separate actions. All the Class Members were subject to the same
`
`corporate practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, of time-shaving, improper overtime rates,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`failing to pay overtime compensation, failing to provide proper wage statements, and failing to
`
`provide proper wage and hour notices. Defendants’ corporate-wide policies and practices
`
`affected all Class Members similarly, and Defendants benefited from the same type of unfair
`
`and/or wrongful acts as to each Class Member. Plaintiff WEI CHEN, and other Class Members
`
`sustained similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices
`
`and procedures.
`
`30.
`
`To the extent necessary, Plaintiff CHEN will designate subclasses for each of the
`
`States where Defendants have employees.
`
`31.
`
`The Class also includes a subclass of employees who all worked for Defendants and
`
`were all subject to the same underpayment of commissions for the enrollments and sales made
`
`between the months of November 2019 to January 2020 (“Commission Subclass”). Plaintiff WEI
`
`CHEN is a member of the Commission Subclass.
`
`32.
`
`During the 2019-2020 open-enrollment season, Commission Subclass members were
`
`induced into working extra hours and producing extra sales by way of a fraudulently published
`
`commission structure. Open enrollment is a period of time each year when individuals and businesses
`
`can sign up for health insurance or change health plans. Outside of Open Enrollment, individuals and
`
`businesses can only change plans due to a life event that qualifies for a Special Enrollment Period. As
`
`such, the open enrollment period is especially important for insurance providers for purposes of
`
`retaining and enrolling new and additional customers. The open enrollment period takes place from
`
`the month of November through mid-January each year.
`
`33.
`
`The commission structure repeatedly published to Commission Subclass members
`
`prior to the 2019 open-enrollment season was intended to incentivize and induce extra work and sales
`
`from the Commission Subclass members by way of a new commission structure promising larger
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`commissions for employees should certain sales goals be reached. Plaintiff WEI CHEN and
`
`Commission Subclass members reached the sales goals set by Defendants. On February 14, 2020,
`
`after Commission Subclass members reached sales goals set by Defendants, Defendants WELLCARE
`
`HEALTH PLANS, INC.’s Vice President of Field Sales and Marketing stated in an email to
`
`employees “Please be assured that the miscommunication regarding commissions was purely my
`
`mistake due to our misinterpretation of the commission plan…” Defendants induced extra work,
`
`further hours, and greater sales from Plaintiff WEI CHEN and Commission Subclass members all
`
`to Defendants’ benefit, but never provided Commission Subclass members the agreed upon
`
`compensation for such work and sales.
`
`34.
`
`The proposed Class is so numerous that a joinder of all members is impracticable,
`
`and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court. Although the
`
`precise number of such persons is unknown, the facts on which the calculation of that number
`
`are presently within the sole control of Defendant, there is no doubt that there are more than forty
`
`(40) members of the Class. The members of each state’s potential subclass total over forty (40)
`
`as well. Commission Subclass members also total over forty (40).
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff WEI CHEN is able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
`
`Class, and the Commission Subclass, and have no interests antagonistic to the Class or Subclass.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff WEI CHEN is represented by attorneys who are experienced and
`
`competent in both class action litigation and employment litigation and have previously
`
`represented plaintiffs in wage and hour cases.
`
`37.
`
`A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of the controversy – particularly in the context of the wage and hour litigation
`
`where individual Class Members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`against a corporate defendant. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly
`
`situated persons to prosecute common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and
`
`without the unnecessary duplication of efforts and expense that numerous individual actions
`
`engender. Because losses, injuries and damages suffered by each of the individual Class
`
`Members are small in the sense pertinent to a class action analysis, the expenses and burden of
`
`individual litigation would make it extremely difficult or impossible for the individual Class
`
`Members to redress the wrongs done to them. On the other hand, important public interests will
`
`be served by addressing the matter as a class action. The adjudication of individual litigation
`
`claims would result in a great expenditure of Court and public resources; however, treating the
`
`claims as a class action would result in a significant saving of these costs. The prosecution of
`
`separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent and/or
`
`varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of the Class, establishing
`
`incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and resulting in the impairment of Class
`
`Members’ rights and the disposition of their interests through actions to which they were not
`
`parties. The issues in this action can be decided by means of common, class-wide proof. In
`
`addition, if appropriate, the Court can, and is empowered to, fashion methods to efficiently
`
`manage this action as a class action.
`
`38.
`
`Defendants and other employers throughout the United States violate state labor
`
`laws. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect
`
`retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing claims because doing so can harm their
`
`employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure employment. Class actions provide
`
`Class Members who are not named in the Complaint a degree of anonymity, which allows for the
`
`vindication of their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`39.
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over
`
`any questions affecting only individual Class Members, including:
`
`(a) Whether Defendants employed Plaintiff WEI CHEN and Class Members
`
`within the meaning of the state labor laws;
`
`(b) What are and were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols
`
`and plans of Defendants regarding the types of work and labor for which
`
`Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff WEI CHEN and Class Members
`
`properly;
`
`(c) At what common rate, or rates subject to common methods of calculation,
`
`was and are Defendants required to pay Plaintiff WEI CHEN and Class
`
`Members for their work;
`
`(d) Whether Defendants properly notified Plaintiff WEI CHEN and Class
`
`Members of their pay rates;
`
`(e) Whether Defendants paid Plaintiff WEI CHEN and Class Members the
`
`proper overtime compensation;
`
`(f) Whether Defendants paid Plaintiff WEI CHEN and Class Members for all
`
`hours worked;
`
`(g) Whether Defendants provided proper wage statements to Plaintiff WEI
`
`CHEN and Class Members;
`
`(h) Whether Defendants provided proper wage and hour notices to Plaintiff
`
`WEI CHEN and Class Members;
`
`(i) Whether Defendants paid proper commissions to Commission Subclass
`
`members; and
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 15 of 33
`
`
`
`(j) Whether Defendants properly compensated Commission Subclass members
`
`at the rate promised by Defendants.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`40.
`
`Defendants operate a healthcare enterprise that focuses on the sale of insurance to
`
`individuals and families, who are either uninsured or seeking to change healthcare insurance
`
`providers.
`
`41.
`
`In operating their business Defendants engaged in multiple schemes to underpay,
`
`or in many cases avoid paying, overtime hours to employees. Plaintiffs and Class Members were
`
`all victims of Defendants inducement of off-the-clock work and of Defendants’ failure to pay
`
`proper time-and-a-half overtime premiums to its employees.
`
`42.
`
`In maintaining its business, Defendants’ central management enacted a policy of
`
`establishing and setting quotas for virtually every aspect of Defendants’ business. Such quotas
`
`for those engaged in customer support involved the number of customer issues which needed to
`
`be resolved in a day. For those engaged in selling Defendants’ insurance packages, such quotas
`
`included the number of sales, i.e., enrollments, an employee had to make each quarter. For those
`
`employees working as eligibility specialists, such employees had quotas for the review of
`
`costumer documents to verify qualifying eligibility for various programs.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants’ quotas were used to impermissibly induce extensive off-the-clock
`
`work by setting extreme targets that employees could not complete in a 40-hour work week.
`
`Even as Defendants induced overtime work from employees, Defendants maintained a procedure
`
`and policy for requesting overtime, which required all employees to subject themselves to a
`
`productivity review and possible reprimand/termination.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 16 of 33
`
`
`
`44.
`
`Due to company pressure to produce and because it was not possible to meet
`
`production quotas working only during their regular scheduled hours, Plaintiffs and Class
`
`Members had no choice but to engage in work activities after their scheduled hours or risk
`
`termination. Plaintiffs and their coworkers took calls, input data, reviewed paperwork, and
`
`engaged in work after hours and off-the-clock. Defendants had full knowledge of the behavior
`
`their quotas and policies engendered as Plaintiffs and Class Members would submit completed
`
`forms and applications necessary to enrollment and/or approval during their off hours when
`
`Defendants knew their employees were not clocked in. Although Plaintiffs and Class Members
`
`were working overtime, Defendants did not pay them for their overtime hours.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class Members off-the-clock work worsened in March of 2020.
`
`After March of 2020, employees were required to work from home due to COVID induced
`
`lockdowns. Once Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to work from home, regional
`
`managers threatened employees against inputting hours outside their scheduled work hours
`
`without prior approval.
`
`46.
`
`As a consequence of this threat and as may be seen from the paystub examples
`
`provided by Plaintiffs, after March of 2020, Class Members compensable hours reflected their
`
`scheduled hours equivalently. See id. Defendants were and are aware that employees are engaging in
`
`off-the-clock work in excess of their registered hours as Defendants would receive notices and time-
`
`stamps of documents, verifications, and resolution of customer issues after the supposed scheduled
`
`and recorded hours of Plaintiffs and Class Members.
`
`47. Moreover, on those occasions when an employee submits and is in fact paid
`
`overtime, Defendants paid the employee at an impermissibly low half-time rate. See Exhibit F
`
`and G. Paystubs of Plaintiff CAI GUO and WEI CHEN Showing Half-Time Overtime Rate.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01743 Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 17 of 33
`
`
`
`Despite Plaintiff and Nationwide FLSA Plaintiffs, and Class Members’ paystubs purporting to pay
`
`employees by the hour, for hours worked over forty employees paid at the proper time-and-a-half rate
`
`(1.5x), Defendants would only compensate employees at a rate of half (.5x) their base hourly pay rate.
`
`48.
`
`Defendants’ violations may be seen clearly through their provided paystubs. See id.
`
`As an example, for the two weeks between February 17, 2019 and March 2, 2019, Plaintiff CAI GUO
`
`was provided two paystubs on March 8, 2019. See id. at P000004. Despite the fact that each paystub
`
`only covered one of the two weeks between February 17, 2019 and March 2, 2019, both purport to
`
`cover the entirety of the two-week period. See id. Defendants’ paystubs themselves are deficient as
`
`neither identifies which of the two weeks the payment covers as needed pursuant to the FLSA and
`
`state labor laws. See id. The paystub also reveals Defen