(FLSA Overtime Violations, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Brought by   Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members)   (New York Overtime Violations, N.Y. Lab. L.  § 650 et seq., N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. § 142 et seq.,   Brought by Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members)   13.  Plaintiffs bring and seek to prosecute their FLSA claims as a collective action  pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. § 207, and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all non- exempt persons employed by defendants, including all employees who are or were formerly  employed by defendants as “cleaners,” “firepersons,” “handypersons,”  “stationary engineers,”  (collectively, “custodians”) and/or other similarly situated current and former employees holding  comparable positions, but different titles (“FLSA  collective plaintiffs”), at any time on or after  the date that is three years before the filing of the Complaint in this case as defined herein (the  “Collective Action Period”).   14.  At all relevant times prior to August 12, 2016, plaintiffs and the other FLSA  collective plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job  requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to defendants’ decisions,  policies, plans and common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and  rules, including willfully failing and refusing to pay plaintiffs and the other FLSA collective  plaintiffs one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rate for work in excess of forty (40) hours  per workweek.  The claims of plaintiffs stated herein are essentially the same as those of the  other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.   16.  The FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are readily ascertainable. For purpose of notice  and other purposes related to this action, their names and addresses are readily available from the  defendants. Notice can be provided to the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs via first class mail to the  last address known to defendants.  17.  Plaintiffs bring New York State law Claims for Relief pursuant to the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt persons employed by  defendants, including all employees who are or were formerly employed by defendants as  custodians and/or other similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable  positions, but different titles, on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the  Complaint in this case as defined herein (the “Class Period”).   18.  All said persons, including plaintiffs, are referred to herein as the “Class.” 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 positions 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 said F.R.C.P. 23.   19.  The proposed Class is so numerous that 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, and the facts on which the calculation of that  number are presently within the sole control of defendants, upon information and belief, there are  more than two hundred (200) Members of the Class.   21.  Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and  has no interests antagonistic to the Class.  Plaintiffs are represented by an attorney who is  experienced and competent in both Class action litigation and employment litigation and has  previously represented clients in wage and hour cases.   23.  Upon information and belief, defendants and other employers throughout the state  violate the New York Labor Law. 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.   26.  At no time have plaintiffs’ job duties included hiring or firing other employees.   27.  At no time have plaintiffs had the power to discipline other employees.   28.  At no time have plaintiffs’ duties differed substantially from defendants’ non- exempt hourly paid employees.   29.  At no time have plaintiffs exercised a meaningful degree of independent  discretion with respect to the exercise of their duties.   30.  At all times while working for defendants, plaintiffs’ primary duties were manual  in nature, and manual duties occupied the majority of their working hours.   31.  Plaintiffs’ Monday through Friday schedules from April 2012 through August 12,  2016 (the “relevant period”), were typical of custodians, who usually work at more than one  school.     33.  Prior to August 2016, all custodians reported directly to “Custodian Engineers,”  who are DOE employees in charge of custodian services at the individual New York City public  schools.  This system, which was created in the early 20th century, has been plagued by  corruption and improper treatment of employees, including failure to properly pay or allocate  overtime.     34.  NYC began to take a more direct involvement in the management and pay of  school custodians during the Bloomberg administration, at which time NYC began restricting the  DOE’s ability to hire and/or pay custodians, and tried to replace the “Custodian Engineer”  system with private employees.     35.  Under, Mayor Bill de Blasio, NYC increased its direct involvement in the  employment of school custodians.  After an investigation into the employment practices  regarding school custodians, NYC abandoned its attempts to privatize the custodians.  In April  2016, NYC created a non-profit corporation, New York City School Support Services, Inc.  (“NYCSSS”), to which all custodians now report.  See De Blasio’s Bizarre School-Custodian  “Solution”, NEW YORK POST, May 21, 2016.  In press releases and other statements, NYC has  stated that the NYCSSS was created, in large part, to address inequities and unfairness vis a vis  the hiring and pay of school custodians, including problems relating to the pay and assignment of  overtime.    37.  NYCSSS took over the direct management of school custodians’ payroll on or  about August 12, 2016.  From that point forward, plaintiffs began receiving overtime at a  premium rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 hours per week,  regardless of whether these hours were performed during weekdays or weekends.   38.  Defendants did not begin paying plaintiffs and the other custodians overtime  because something about their jobs changed after NYCSSS took over the custodian’s payroll on  August 12, 2016 – plaintiffs’ job duties, location, schedule, management, and every other aspect  of their employment remained the same from March 2006 through December 22, 2016.  Rather,  defendants began paying custodians overtime because of the involvement of the NYCSSS,  which was created to correct labor law abuses involving custodians.   39.  Defendants did not receive reimbursement for the unpaid overtime they earned  prior to August 2016.  They were aware, however, through reports in the media and statements  by the custodians’ unions, that NYCSSS was continuing to negotiate with the custodians’  representatives regarding outstanding employment issues.   40.  Unfortunately, instead of paying the custodians back the overtime they are owed,  defendants slashed their hours in December 2016.     41.  At no time prior to August 12, 2016, had defendants paid plaintiffs overtime at a  rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for weekday hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours  per work week, as defendants were required to do under the FLSA and the NYLL.     42.  Plaintiffs believe there are at least two hundred (200) similarly situated  employees to whom, at least until August 12, 2016, defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime  at a rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  work week.   55.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, the FLSA collective plaintiffs and class  members, reallege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs.   56.  Throughout the statute of limitations period covered by these claims, the FLSA  collective plaintiffs and class members regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  workweek.   57.  At all relevant times prior to August 12, 2016, defendants operated under a  decision, policy and plan, and under common policies, programs, practices, procedures,  protocols, routines and rules of willfully failing and refusing to pay the plaintiffs, FLSA  collective plaintiffs and class members at one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rates for  work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, even though plaintiffs, the FLSA collective  plaintiffs and class members were entitled to overtime.   58.  At all relevant times prior to August 12, 2016, defendants willfully, regularly and  repeatedly failed to pay plaintiffs, the FLSA collective plaintiffs and class members at the  required overtime rates of at least one-and-one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in  excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.   60.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, the FLSA collective plaintiffs and class  members, reallege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs.   61.  At all relevant times prior to August 12, 2016, plaintiffs were employees and  defendants were employers within the meaning of NYLL.   62.  The overtime wage provisions of Article 19 of the NYLL and its supporting  regulations apply to defendants.   63.  It is unlawful under New York law for employers to suffer or permit a non- exempt employee to work without paying overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty  (40) hours in any workweek.   64.  Throughout the class period, defendants willfully, regularly and repeatedly failed  to pay plaintiffs, the FLSA collective plaintiffs and class members at the required overtime rates,  one-and-one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  workweek.   65.  By failing to pay plaintiffs and the class members overtime wages for all hours  worked in excess of 40 hours per week, they have willfully violated NYLL Article 19, § 650 et  seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, including, inter alia,  the regulations in 12 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 142, 143.   A. ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLAINTIFFS, FLSA COLLECTIVE  PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS MEMBERS  