21. The Collective Action Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts  on which the calculation of that number is dependent, are presently within the sole  control of the Defendants, upon information and belief, there are hundreds of potential members of the Collective Action Class during the Collective Action Period, most of  whom would not be likely to file individual suits because they lack adequate financial  resources, access to attorneys or knowledge of their claims.  22. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action  Class and have retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the fields of wage  and hour law and class action litigation.  Plaintiffs have no interest that is contrary to or  in conflict with those members of this collective action.  23. A collective action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable.   Furthermore, inasmuch as the damages suffered by individual members of the  Collective Action Class may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual  litigation make it virtually impossible for the members of the collective action to  individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them.  There will be no difficulty in the  management of this action as a collective action.  25. Plaintiffs know no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action. 26. Plaintiff, Shannese Greenaway and KarelPowery sue on their own behalf and on  behalf of a class under Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure.  28. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts on which  the calculation of that number are presently within the sole control of the Defendants.  29. The claims of Plaintiffs, Shannese Greenaway and KarelPoweryare typical of the  claims of the Class and a class action is superior to other available methods for fair and  efficient adjudication of the controversy—particularly in the context of wage and hour  litigation where individual plaintiffs lack the financial resource to vigorously prosecute a  lawsuit in federal court against a defendant.    30. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory  relief with respect to the Class as a whole.   31. Plaintiffs, Shannese Greenaway and KarelPowery are committed to pursuing this  action and have retained competent counsel experience in wage and hour law and class  action litigation.   32. Plaintiffs, Shannese Greenaway and KarelPoweryhave the same interests in this  matter as all other members of this Class and Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Class.   34. The FLSA provides that, with certain exceptions, employers must pay employees  minimum wages for all compensable hours worked and overtime of at least one and  one-half times their regular rate of pay for any hours over forty worked in a week. 29  U.S.C. §§ 206, 207(a)(1).  The Act exempts certain employees from the minimum wage  and overtime requirements.  However, an "employer who claims an exemption from the  FLSA has the burden of showing that the exemption applies" see Donovan v. Nekton,  Inc., 703 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1983).   36. Although the FLSA provides for certain exemptions to the mandates of paying  minimum wages and overtime compensation, no exemption applies in the instant  matter.  37. Defendantsdo business throughout New York as a franchisee of Applebee’s,  operating approximately 33 Applebee’s within the five boroughs, Westchester and  Rockland Counties.  38. Plaintiff, Shannese Greenawaywas employed by Defendants from approximately  2009 until May 2011 as a hostess. Plaintiff was stationed in Long Island, NY.  39. Plaintiff,KarelPowery, was employed by Defendants from approximately 2010  until December 2011 as a Server.   40. Plaintiffs worked extensive hours without a break for years. According to Labor  Law Section 162, employees must be granted a 30 minute lunch break if they work for  six (6) consecutive hours, including the time period between 11am and 2pm. Further, if  an employee begins work prior to 11am and continues until 7pm, he/she is entitled for  another 20 minute break between 5pm and 7pm.   42. Plaintiffs were not compensated for any additional or side work. Plaintiffs would  work anywhere between an hour and two hours preparing for the day. This was not  accounted for in Plaintiffs’ hours and therefore did not receive compensation for time  spent preparing for the work day.  43. Plaintiff, Shannese Greenaway, principle duties included but were not limited to:  opening doors for guests, answering the phone, seating guests, bussing tables,  occasional food runs, and cleaning the bathroom.   44. Plaintiff, KarelPowery, principle duties included but not limited to: serve  customers, take orders, wash dishes, host, prepare food, roll silverware, and stock the  fridge.   45. Plaintiffs’ duties did not include the hiring and firing of employees and had no  input into hiring or firing decisions.   46. Plaintiffs’ work was performed for the benefit of the Defendants, in the normal  course of the Defendants’ business, and was integrated into the business of the  Defendants.   47. The work performed by Plaintiffs required little skill and no capital investment.  Their duties did not principally include managerial responsibilities or the exercise of  independent judgment.   49. Upon information belief, throughout the Collective Action Period and Class  Period continuing until today, Defendants have likewise employed other individuals,  like the Plaintiffs (members of the Collective Action Class and the Class) in similar  positions that require little skill and no capital investment and their duties and  responsibilities do not principally include any managerial responsibilities or the  exercise of independent judgment. They do not have the authority to hire or fire other  employees, and they are not responsible for making hiring and firing recommendations.  50. Such individuals may have worked in excess of 40 hours a week, yet Defendants have likewise willfully failed to pay them for all hours worked as well as overtime  compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay in violation of the  FLSA and, in the case of New York employees, the New York Labor Law. As stated, the  exact number of such individuals is presently unknown, but within the sole knowledge  of Defendants, and can be ascertained through appropriate discovery.   51. Upon information and belief, throughout all relevant time periods, while  Defendants employed Plaintiffs, the Collective Action Members, and Class Members,  Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient time records.  53. At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs, and employed or continue  to employ, each of the members of the Collective Action Class within the meaning of the  61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by referencing paragraphs 1 through 19 and  26-51 as if they were set forth again herein.   62. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class were employed by  Defendants within the meaning of the New York Labor Law § § 2 and 651.  63. Defendants willfully violated Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of the Class, by  failing to pay them for all hours worked, as well as for overtime compensation at rates  no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in  excess of forty hours in a workweek in violation of the New York Labor Law and its  regulations.   64. Defendants’ New York Labor Law violations have caused Plaintiffs and the Class  irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  NEW YORK LABOR LAW 