14.  Plaintiff seeks to bring this suit to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime  compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the applicable provisions of the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. § 216(b), individually, on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of those in the following  collective:  Current and former plumbers, who during the applicable FLSA  limitations period, performed any work for Defendants as a  plumber, or other similar position, and who consent to file a claim  to recover damages for overtime compensation and liquidated  damages that are legally due to them (“FLSA Plaintiffs”).   15.  Defendants treated Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs similarly in that Plaintiff and  all FLSA Plaintiffs: (1) performed similar tasks, as described in the “Background Facts” section  below; (2) were subject to the same laws and regulations; (3) were paid in the same or similar  manner; (4) were required to work in excess of forty hours in a workweek; and (5) were not paid  the required one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked per  workweek in excess of forty.   16.  At all times relevant to the FLSA, Defendants are and have been aware of the  requirements to pay Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs at an amount equal to the rate of one and one- half times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked each workweek above forty.   Indeed, Defendants were previously sued for, inter alia, substantially-similar, if not identical  FLSA overtime violations to those alleged here, and a judgment was entered against Defendants  to end that case.  Nonetheless, Defendants purposefully and willfully continued to choose not to  pay Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs in accordance with the FLSA’s overtime provisions.  6   17.  Thus, Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs are victims of Defendants’ pervasive  practice of willfully refusing to pay their employees proper overtime compensation at the  statutorily-required rate for all hours worked per workweek above forty, in violation of the FLSA.  18.  In addition, Plaintiff seeks to maintain this action as a class action pursuant to FRCP  23(b)(3), on behalf of himself, individually, as well as on behalf of all those who are similarly- situated whom Defendants subjected to violations of the NYLL and the NYCRR during the  applicable statutory period.   19.  Under FRCP 23(b)(3), a plaintiff must plead that:  a. The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable;  b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class that predominate  over any individual questions of law or fact;  c. Claims or defenses of the representative are typical of the class;  d. The representative will fairly and adequately protect the class; and  e. A class action is superior to other methods of adjudication.   20.  Plaintiff seeks certification of the following FRCP 23 class:  Current and former plumbers, who during the applicable NYLL  limitations period, performed any work for Defendants in New York  as a plumber or in a similar position (“Rule 23 Plaintiffs”).  Numerosity   21.  During the previous six years Defendants have employed, in total, at least forty  employees who are putative members of this class.  7  Common Questions of Law and/or Fact   22.  There are common questions of law and fact that govern the claims of each and  every Rule 23 Plaintiff and that predominate over any questions solely affecting individual  members of the FRCP 23 class, including but not limited to the following: (1) the duties that  Defendants required each Rule 23 Plaintiff to perform; (2) the manner of compensating each Rule  23 Plaintiff; (3) whether the Rule 23 Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty hours in a week; (4)  whether Defendants failed to pay the Rule 23 Plaintiffs proper overtime compensation for all hours  worked in excess of forty in a week; (5) whether Defendants furnished the Rule 23 Plaintiffs with  accurate wage statements on each payday containing the information required by NYLL § 195(3);  (6) whether Defendants kept and maintained accurate records of hours that the Rule 23 Plaintiffs  worked; (7) whether Defendants kept and maintained records with respect to the compensation  that they paid to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs for each hour worked; (8) whether Defendants have any  affirmative defenses to any of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs’ claims; (9) whether Defendants’ actions with  respect to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs were in violation of the NYLL and its supporting regulations; and  (10) if so, what constitutes the proper measure of damages.  Typicality of Claims and/or Defenses   23.  As described in the “Background Facts” section below, Defendants employed  Plaintiff and Rule 23 Plaintiffs within the meaning of the NYLL.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of  the claims of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs whom he seeks to represent, as the Rule 23 Plaintiffs work  and/or have worked for Defendants as plumbers, or in other similar positions, in New York, and  Defendants do not and/or did not: properly pay them overtime at a rate of one and one-half times  their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in a week over forty; and/or provide them  with accurate wage statements on each payday.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs enjoy the same  8  rights under the NYLL and the NYCRR to receive overtime wages at the statutorily-required rate  of time and one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked each week over forty, and to  be furnished with accurate wage statements on each payday.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs  have all sustained similar types of damages as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with the  NYLL and its supporting regulations.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs all have suffered injury,  including lack of compensation or under compensation, due to Defendants’ common policies,  practices, and patterns of conduct.  Thus, Plaintiff’s claims and/or Defendants’ defenses to those  claims are typical of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs’ claims and/or Defendants’ defenses to those claims.  Adequacy   24.  Plaintiff, as described below, worked the same or similar hours as the Rule 23  Plaintiffs throughout his employment with Defendants.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime  at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all of his hours worked over forty in a  week, and did not furnish Plaintiff with accurate wage statements on each payday, which is  substantially similar to how Defendants paid and treated the Rule 23 Plaintiffs.  Plaintiff fully  anticipates providing discovery responses and testifying under oath as to all of the matters raised  in this Complaint and that may be raised in Defendants’ Answer that pertain to him.  Thus, Plaintiff  would properly and adequately represent the current and former employees whom Defendants  have subjected to the treatment alleged herein.   25.  Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel has substantial experience in this field of law.  9  Superiority   26.  Plaintiff has no, or very few, material facts relating to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs’ claims  that are atypical of those of the putative class.  Indeed, at all times during the relevant period,  Defendants treated Plaintiff identically, or at the very least, substantially similarly, to the Rule 23  Plaintiffs.   27.  Any lawsuit brought by any plumber or person working in another similar position  for Defendants in New York would be identical to a suit brought by any other similar employee  for the same violations as alleged herein.  Thus, separate litigation would risk inconsistent results.   28.  Accordingly, the means of protecting the Rule 23 Plaintiffs’ rights is superior to  any other method, and this action is properly maintainable as a class action under FRCP 23(b)(3).  29.  Defendant Triboro is a Brooklyn-based company that provides service and repair  to water mains and sewers for commercial and residential buildings throughout the five boroughs  of New York City and on Long Island.   30.  Defendant Passalacqua is the owner of Triboro, as well as the individual who  oversees its daily operations, who in that role manages and supervises all Triboro employees,  including but not limited to Plaintiff and all of Triboro’s plumbers.  Defendant Passalacqua has  hiring and firing authority and exercises that authority routinely.  Defendant Passalacqua is also  responsible for determining the hours that plumbers are required to work, the amount of  compensation paid to plumbers, and the method of compensating plumbers.  He also is responsible  for maintaining employment records for the business’s employees.  To that end, Defendant  Passalacqua personally hired Plaintiff, determined his rate of pay and work schedule, managed and  10  supervised Plaintiff’s day-to-day activities, including the work site to which Plaintiff would be  assigned each day, and ultimately terminated Plaintiff’s employment.   31.  Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a plumber from June 2005 through April 2, 2020  at which point he was furloughed for one month until his termination on May 2, 2020.   32.  As a plumber, Plaintiff’s primary job duties consisted of installing and repairing  basins, sewers, fire hydrants, sprinkler mains, and water mains at various work sites throughout  the five boroughs of New York City and on Long Island.  Specifically, the majority of Plaintiff’s  job sites were in Brooklyn and Defendants’ principal place of business was and is located in  Brooklyn.    33.  Throughout at least the relevant period, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and  Plaintiff did work, between forty-six and fifty-four hours per week from Monday through Friday  during two weeks each month, and between fifty-six and one-half and sixty-six hours per week  from Monday through Saturday during the other two weeks each month, for an average of 56.75  hours each week.   34.  Specifically, from Monday through Friday, Defendants required Plaintiff to start  his workday at 8:00 a.m., and to continue working until anywhere between 5:30 p.m. and 7:00  p.m., randomly receiving unscheduled thirty-minute breaks two or three days per week.  On  Saturdays, Defendants required Plaintiff to start his workday at 7:00 a.m. and to continue working  until between 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. without any scheduled or uninterrupted breaks.   35.  Thus, at all times throughout the relevant period, Defendants required Plaintiff to  actually work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, a minimum of forty-six and as many as sixty-six  hours in a week.   11   36.  During the weeks when Plaintiff worked only five days per week from Monday  through Friday, Defendants paid Plaintiff at the following rates of pay for the first forty hours that  he worked each week and nothing additional for any hours worked in excess of forty per week:      a. from at least the beginning of the relevant period through March 2016, at a rate  of $20.00 per hour;    b. from April 2016 through March 2018, at a rate of $22.50 per hour; and  c. from April 2018 through April 2, 2020, at a rate of $25.00 per hour.   37.  During the weeks when Plaintiff worked six days per week from Monday through  Saturday, Defendants paid Plaintiff in the following manner:  a. from at least the beginning of the relevant period through March 2016, at a rate  $20.00 per hour for the first fifty hours worked in a week, and nothing additional  for his hours worked beyond fifty;  b. from April 2016 through March 2018, at a rate of $22.50 per hour for the first  fifty hours worked in a week, and nothing additional for his hours worked  beyond fifty; and  c. from April 2018 through April 2, 2020, at a rate of $25.00 per hour for the first  fifty-two hours worked in a week, and nothing additional for his hours worked  beyond fifty-two.   38.  At no time during the relevant period did Defendants pay Plaintiff at the rate of one  and one-half times his regular rate of pay for the hours that he worked over forty in a week.   39.  By way of example, for the pay period of October 18 through October 24, 2019,  Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, a total of sixty-six hours according  to the following schedule:  12  Friday, October 18, 2019: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. without a scheduled or  uninterrupted break;  Saturday, October 19, 2019: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. without a scheduled or  uninterrupted break;  Sunday, October 20, 2019: Off.  Monday, October 21, 2019: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with a thirty-minute break;  Tuesday, October 22, 2019: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. without a scheduled or  uninterrupted break;  Wednesday, October 23, 2019: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with a thirty-minute break;  and  Thursday, October 24, 2019: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. without a scheduled or  uninterrupted break.  For his work during this workweek, Defendants paid Plaintiff at his straight-time rate of $25.00  per hour for fifty-two hours of work, and nothing additional for the remaining fourteen hours that  he worked.    40.  Defendants paid Plaintiff on a weekly basis in both cash and check.   41.  On each occasion when Defendants paid Plaintiff, Defendants failed to furnish  Plaintiff with a wage statement that accurately listed, inter alia, his actual hours worked for the  week, or his overtime rate and overtime wages owed.    42.  Defendants treated Plaintiff, FLSA Plaintiffs, and Rule 23 Plaintiffs in the same  manner described herein.   43.  Defendants acted in this manner to maximize their profits and minimize their labor  costs and overhead.  13   44.  Each hour that Plaintiff, FLSA Plaintiffs, and Rule 23 Plaintiffs worked was for  Defendants’ benefit.   45.  Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every  allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.   46.  29 U.S.C. § 207(a) requires employers to compensate their employees at a rate not  less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked exceeding forty in  a workweek.   47.  As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the FLSA,  while Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are employees within the meaning of the FLSA.   48.  As also described above, Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty  hours in a workweek, yet Defendants failed to compensate them in accordance with the FLSA’s  overtime provisions.   49.  Defendants willfully violated the FLSA.   50.  Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked per  week in excess of forty at the rate of one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay.   51.  Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are also entitled to liquidated damages and attorneys’  fees for Defendants’ violations of the FLSA’s overtime provisions.  52.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action  repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and  effect as if more fully set forth herein.   14   53.  NYLL § 160 and 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2 require employers to compensate their  employees at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours  worked exceeding forty in a workweek.   54.  As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the NYLL  and the NYCRR, while Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this  action are employees within the meaning of the NYLL and the NYCRR.   55.  As also described above, Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who  opts-in to this action worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, yet Defendants failed to  compensate them in accordance with the NYLL’s and the NYCRR’s overtime provisions.   56.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action are  entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked per week in excess of forty at the rate of one and one- half times their respective regular rates of pay.   57.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action are  also entitled to liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ violations of the  NYLL’s and the NYCRR’s overtime provisions.  58.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action  repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and  effect as if more fully set forth herein.   59.  NYLL § 195(3) requires that employers furnish employees with wage statements  containing accurate, specifically enumerated criteria on each occasion when the employer pays  wages to the employee.  15   60.  As described above, Defendants, on each payday, failed to furnish Plaintiff, Rule  23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action with wage statements that  accurately contained the criteria required under the NYLL.   61.  Prior to February 27, 2015, pursuant to NYLL § 198(1-d), Defendants are liable to  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action in the amount of  $100 for each workweek after the violation occurred, up to a statutory cap of $2,500.   62.  On or after February 27, 2015, pursuant to NYLL § 198(1-d), Defendants are liable  to Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action in the amount of  $250 for each workday after the violation occurred, up to a statutory cap of $5,000.  Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of the NYLL   Unpaid Overtime Under the FLSA   Unpaid Overtime Under the NYLL and the NYCRR  