16.  Defendant Securitas is in the business of providing facility security  services throughout the United States.  Duties Performed and Hours Worked1   18.  Plaintiff was a full-time employee of Defendant for the duration of the  statutory period, with the exception of in or around May 2017 until in or around June  2018. During this period, Plaintiff worked part-time for Defendant due to a lost contract  by Defendant, and any overtime claim will exclude this time period.   19.  Plaintiff, as a security guard, was responsible for patrolling assigned  buildings, monitoring the sign-in desk, as well as other miscellaneous duties. Plaintiff’s  specific job duties would vary based upon the job site to which he was assigned.   20.  During his employment with Defendant, due to high turnover, upon  information and belief, Plaintiff worked with at least between 40 and 50 other security  guards. From personally observing and speaking with them, Plaintiff knows that his  coworkers performed the same primary duties as him and were compensated in the same  manner by Defendants.   21.  Plaintiff is typically scheduled to work five shifts per week, Monday to  Friday, and for eight hours each shift, either 4:00 p.m. until 12:00 a.m., or from 12:00  a.m. until 8:00 a.m. These shifts included a 1-hour meal break. This resulted in a 35-hour  workweek during these weeks.   22.  Plaintiff is frequently assigned extra shifts due to increased demand for  Defendant’s services or another employee calling out of work, among other reasons.  During these instances, Plaintiff would work a double shift, typically from 4:00 p.m. until  8:00 a.m. Plaintiff was often assigned 2 to 3 extra shifts, every other week. During these  weeks, Plaintiff worked an average of 55 hours.   24.  During his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked more than 40  hours approximately every other week.    25.  From speaking with his coworkers and personal observations, Plaintiff  knows that other security guards were, like him, regularly scheduled to work and did, in  fact, work more than 40 hours in a week.    Hourly Rate and Overtime   26.  Defendant paid Plaintiff an hourly rate.   27.  Plaintiff’s hourly rate was supposed to differ based upon his assigned  worksite. However, Plaintiff was typically paid $15.50 per hour for every hour he worked  up to 40 hours per week, making $23.25 his overtime rate.    28.  Regardless of what hourly rate he was paid, Defendant never paid him  overtime premium pay for hours he worked above 40.    29.  As with Plaintiff’s hours worked, the wage statements Plaintiff was  provided are again unclear regarding Plaintiff’s rates of pay. Plaintiff’s wage statements  frequently list several varying rates of pay, none of which correspond to any discernible  overtime rate based upon Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay. Such ambiguities are  intentionally designed to mislead employees, including the Plaintiff, regarding their hours  worked and pay rates.   31.  Although Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly  worked more than 40 hours per week, Defendants did not pay them their proper overtime  premium pay: 1.5 times their regular hourly rate.   32.  From speaking with them, Plaintiff knows that security guards, like him,  were not paid overtime premium pay.   Labor Law Notice and Wage Statement Violations   33.  Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees with the Notice and Acknowledgment of Payrate and Payday under N.Y. Lab.  Law § 195.1 when he was hired or at any point during his employment.    34.  Likewise, Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees with accurate wage statements under N.Y. Lab. Law § 195.3 with any wage  payment.   35.  Defendant did not post at the restaurant a poster advising Plaintiff and  other employees of their right to a minimum wage and overtime premium pay.  37.  The Class Members identified above are 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 are presently within Defendant’s sole  control, upon information and belief, more than 50 Class Members exist.    38.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class Members’, and a class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the  controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where individual  plaintiffs lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court  against a corporate defendant.    39.  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to  the Class Members, making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding  declaratory relief with respect to the Class Members.    40.  Plaintiff is committed to pursuing this action and has retained competent  counsel experienced in employment law, wage and hour law, and class action litigation.     41.  Plaintiff has the same interest in this matter as all other Class Members  and their claims are typical of Class Members’.    44.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members are similarly situated on  several legal and factual issues, including but not limited to:  a.  whether Defendant employed the Collective Action Members  within the meaning of the FLSA;  b.  whether the Collective Action Members performed similar duties;  c.  whether Defendant failed to keep true and accurate time records  for all hours Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members worked;  d.  what proof of hours worked is sufficient where the employer fails  in its duty to maintain time records;  e.  whether Defendant willfully or recklessly violated the FLSA;  f.  whether Defendant failed to pay the Collective Action Members  overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek,  violating the FLSA and the regulations promulgated thereunder;  g.  whether Defendant should be enjoined from such violations of the  FLSA in the future; and  h.  whether the statute of limitations should be estopped or equitably  tolled due to Defendants’ statutory violations.  46.  Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Members no less than 1.5 times the regular rate at which they were paid for all hours  worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek under the overtime wage provisions set forth  in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a)(1) and 215(a).   47.  At all relevant times, Defendant had a policy and practice of refusing to  pay overtime compensation to their employees for their hours worked in excess of 40  hours per workweek.   48.  Defendant was aware or should have been aware that the practices  described in this Complaint were unlawful, making its violations willful or reckless.    49.  Defendant has not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with  respect to Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members’ compensation.   50.  Defendant has failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to its  employees sufficient to determine the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of  employment, violating the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, 207(a)(1) and 215(a).   51.  In failing to compensate Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members for  all compensable hours worked, Defendant violated the FLSA and the regulations  thereunder, including 29 C.F.R. §§ 785.13, 785.11.   53.  Under the Labor Law and supporting New York Statement Department of  Labor Regulations, Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members one  and 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per  workweek.   54.  Defendant failed to pay the Class Members the overtime wages to which  they were entitled, violating N.Y. Lab Law § 650 and Part 146, § 146-1.4of Title 12 of  the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations promulgated by the  Commissioner of Labor pursuant to the Minimum Wage Act.    55.  In failing to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members for all  compensable hours worked, Defendant violated the Labor Law and the regulations  thereunder, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 146-1.2, 1.4.    56.  Defendant willfully violated the Labor Law by knowingly and  intentionally failing to pay the Class Members the correct amount of overtime wages.   57.  Due to Defendant’s Labor Law violations, Plaintiff and the Class  Members are entitled to recover from Defendant their unpaid wages, liquidated damages,  reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, pre and post-judgment interest, and such other legal and  equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper.  59.  Defendant has willfully failed to supply Plaintiff and the Class Members  with the required Notice and Acknowledgement of Pay Rate and Payday under Labor  Law § 195.1(a) within ten business days of their first employment date.   60.  Due to Defendant’s violations of Labor Law § 195.1, Plaintiff and the  Class Members are entitled to recover from Defendant $50.00 for each work day that the  violations occurred or continue to occur, or a total of $5,000.00, reasonable attorneys’  fees, costs, injunctive and declaratory relief. New York. Lab. Law § 198(1)-b (2016).  61.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   62.  Defendant has willfully failed to supply Plaintiff and the Class Members  with the required statement with every payment of wages, violating Labor Law § 195.3.   63.  Due to Defendant’s violations of Labor Law § 195.3, Plaintiff and the  Rule 23 Class Members are entitled to recover from Defendant $100.00 for each work  week that the violations occurred or continue to occur, or a total of $5,000.00, as  provided for by Labor Law § 198(1)-d, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, injunctive and  declaratory relief.   FAILURE TO PAY THE OVERTIME PREMIUM PAY   UNDER THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Action Members)   FAILURE TO PROVIDE 195.3 WAGE STATEMENT  UNDER THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Action Members)   FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME PREMIUM PAY UNDER THE FLSA  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members)   FAILURE TO PROVIDE 195.1 NOTICE UNDER THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Action Members)  