       Discrimination and Termination of Employment Because of Pregnancy   [Violation of New York City Human Rights Law as amended by the New York City  Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 et seq., 8- 107(22)]  (Against All Defendants)  117.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.  118.  The New York City Human Rights Law prohibits any employer or an employee or  an agent thereof from discriminating against an employee in the terms and conditions of her  employment and discharging an employee based Plaintiff’s disability and perceived disability due  to her pregnancy and related medical condition. N.Y. C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a).  119.  As outlined above, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and  conditions of her pregnancy and by terminating her employment.  120.  In doing so, Defendants acted with willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for Ms.  Romero’s rights to be free from discrimination because of pregnancy.  121.  Plaintiff is entitled to damages as a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, including  lost wages and benefits, damages to compensate her for past and future physical and emotional  distress, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action, and pre-judgment  interest.  Prayer For Relief  23  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the FLSA collective members,  respectfully requests that this court enter a judgment providing the following relief:   a)  Authorizing Plaintiff at the earliest possible time to give notice of this collective  action,  or that the court issue such notice, to all persons who are presently, or have been employed  by defendants as non-exempt tipped or non-tipped employees. Such notice shall inform them that  the civil notice has been filed, of the nature of the action, of their right to join this lawsuit if they  believe they were denied proper hourly compensation and overtime wages;  b)  Certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to FLSA;   c)  Issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all similarly situated members  of the FLSA opt-in class, apprising them of the pendency of this action, and permitting them to  assert timely FLSA claims and state claims in this action by filing individual Consent to Sue forms  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Collective  Action Members;   d)  A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under  FLSA and New York Labor Law;   e)  An injunction against E-Z Recycling Services Inc., New Colony Enterprise Inc., its  officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert  with them as provided by law, from engaging in each of unlawful practices and policies set forth  herein;  f)  An award of unpaid wages and minimum wages due Plaintiff and the Collective  Action members under the FLSA and New York Labor Law, plus compensatory and liquidated  damages in the amount of twenty five percent under NYLL §§190 et seq., §§650 et seq., and one  hundred percent after April 9, 2011 under NY Wage Theft Prevention Act, and interest;   24  g)  An award of unpaid overtime wages due under FLSA and New York Labor Law,  plus compensatory and liquidated damages in the amount of twenty five percent under NYLL  §§190 et seq., §§650 et seq., and one hundred percent after April 9, 2011 under NY Wage Theft  Prevention Act, and interest;  h)  An award of unpaid “spread of hours” premium due under the New York Labor  Law;  i)  An award of damages for Defendants’ failure to provide wage notice at the time of  hiring as required under the New York Labor Law.  j)  An award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’ knowing  and willful failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216;  k)  An award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’ willful  failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation and “spread of hours” premium pursuant  to New York Labor Law;   l)  An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’  and expert fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and NYLL §§198 and 663;   m)  The cost and disbursements of this action;   n)  An award of prejudgment and post-judgment fees;   o)  Providing that if any amounts remain unpaid upon the expiration of ninety days  following the issuance of judgment, or ninety days after expiration of the time to appeal and no  appeal is then pending, whichever is later, the total amount of judgment shall automatically  increase by fifteen percent, as required by NYLL §198(4); and   p)  Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just,  and proper.   25  Dated:  Flushing, New York May 15, 2017          Discrimination and Termination of Employment Because of Pregnancy   [Violation of New York City Human Rights Law as amended by the New York City  Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and N.Y.C. Admin. Code§§ 8-101 et seq., 8- 107(22)]  (Against All Defendants)  112.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.  113.  The Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination in the terms and  conditions of employment and the discharge of an employee based on the employee’s pregnancy.  42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1), 2000e(k).  114.  As outlined above, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and  conditions of her pregnancy and by terminating her employment.  115.  In doing so, Defendants acted maliciously and with reckless indifference to  Plaintiff’s right to be free from discrimination based on her pregnancy.  22  116.  Plaintiff is entitled to damages as a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, including  lost wages and benefits, damages to compensate her for past and future physical and emotional  distress, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action, and pre-judgment  interest.   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Time of Hire Wage Notice Requirement]  105.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.  106.  The Defendants failed to furnish to the Plaintiff at the time of hiring a notice  containing the rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week,  salary, piece, commission, or other; allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage,  including tip, meal, or lodging allowances; the regular pay day designated by the employer in  accordance with section one hundred ninety-one of this article; the name of the employer; any  “doing business as” names used by the employer; the physical address of the employer’s main  office or principal place of business, and a mailing address if different; the telephone number of  the employer, and anything otherwise required by law; in violation of the NYLL, § 195(1).  107.  Due to the defendants’ violation of the NYLL, § 195(1) each Plaintiff is entitled to  recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, $50 for each workday that the violation occurred  or continued to occur, up to $5,000, together with costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to New York  Labor Law. N.Y. Lab. Law §198(1-b).   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]   34.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.   35.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime pay, spread of  hours pay, and failure to provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring would financially  injure Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and violate state and federal laws.  8  Plaintiff Maria Romero:   36.  From May 2009 to June 2016 Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as  recycling working for Defendants’ recycling business located at 102-17 44th Ave. Corona, NY  11368.    37.  From May 2009 to June 2016, Plaintiff worked starting at 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.  six days per week.  Plaintiff took one day off each week.  Plaintiff regularly worked at least sixty  (60) hours per week.   38.  Plaintiff was paid at a weekly flat rate of $360.00, in cash.   39.  The applicable minimum wage for the relevant periods are:  a. January 1, 2007 to July 23, 2009 period was $7.15 per hour.  b. July 24, 2009 to December 30, 2013 period was $7.25 per hour.  c. December 31, 2013 to December 30, 2014 period was $8.00 per hour.  d. December 31, 2014 to December 30, 2015 period was $8.75 per hour.   e. December 31, 2015 to December 30, 2016 period was $9.00 per hour.    40.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for minimum wage or overtime  compensation according to state and federal laws.   41.  Plaintiff was not provided any uninterrupted breaks or any time for meals.   42.  Plaintiff was not provided any sick leave.    43.  Plaintiff was not required to utilize any means of recording or verifying their hours  worked (e.g. punch clock, sign-in sheet, fingerprint or ID scanner).   44.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff overtime compensation according to state  and federal laws.  9   45.  Plaintiff was not compensated for New York’s “spread of hours” premium for shifts  that lasted longer than ten (10) hours, one day each week.    46.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a wage notices at the time of her hiring.    47.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.    48.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wages, overtime and the  “spread of hours” premium would economically injure Plaintiff and the Collective Members by  their violation of federal and state laws.    49.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was not exempt under federal and state  laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime.    50.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action Members’ workdays frequently lasted  longer than 10 hours.    51.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other Collective Action members’ New York’s  “spread of hours” premium for every day in which they worked over 10 hours.    52.  Defendants failed to keep full and accurate records of Plaintiff’s hours and wages.   53.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and other Collective Action Members with  written notices about the terms and conditions of their employment upon hire in relation to their  rate of pay, regular pay cycle and rate of overtime pay. These notices were similarly not provided  upon Plaintiff and other Collective Members’ pay increase(s).   Pregnancy Discrimination    54.  On or about the end of April, Plaintiff informed Defendants that she was pregnant  and will soon be required to take time off from work due to the pregnancy.   10   55.  Defendant Jinlong Gao informed Plaintiff she can take the time she needs and when  she returns her job will still be available for her.    56.  On or about June 2016, Plaintiff informed Defendant Jinlong Gao of her intent on  taking maternity leave and an approximate time when she would return to work. Defendant Jinlong  Gao reassured Plaintiff her job will be available when she returns.   57.  On or about March 2017 Plaintiff contacted Defendants with the intent to return to  work, she was denied the opportunity and was informed the position has been filed.    58.  Defendants acted willfully and with malice, in conscious and deliberate disregard  of Plaintiff’s health and interests.    59.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage to Plaintiff or other  similarly situated employees.    60.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and  one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in violation of the FLSA  and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor  Regulations.    61.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying the New York State “spread of hours” premium to Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees.   62.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other and former non- exempt employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants at each of their warehouse  11  locations for up to the last three (3) years, through entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective  Action Period”) and whom failed to receive minimum wages, spread-of-hours pay, and/or  overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week (the “Collective  Action Members”), and have been subject to the same common decision, policy, and plan to not  provide required wage notices at the time of hiring, in contravention to federal and state labor laws.    63.  Upon information and belief, the Collection Action Members are so numerous the  joinder of all members is impracticable. The identity and precise number of such persons are  unknown, and the facts upon which the calculations of that number may be ascertained are  presently within the sole control of the Defendants. Upon information and belief, there are more  than fifteen (15) Collective Action Members, who have worked for or have continued to work for  the Defendants during the Collective Action Period, most of whom would not likely file individual  suits because they fear retaliation, lack adequate financial resources, access to attorneys, or  knowledge of their claims. Therefore, Plaintiff submits that this case should be certified as a  collection action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).    64.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action  Members, and have retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the field of employment  law and class action litigation. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with those  members of this collective action.   65.  This action should be certified as collective action because the prosecution of  separate action by individual members of the collective action would risk creating either  inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members of this collective that  would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not party to the  adjudication, or subsequently impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.   12   66.  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 Collective Action Members may be relatively  small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes 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 collective action.    67.  Questions of law and fact common to members of the collective action predominate  over questions that may affect only individual members because Defendants have acted on grounds  generally applicable to all members. Among the questions of fact common to Plaintiff and other  Collective Action Members are:   a. Whether the Defendants employed Collective Action members within the   meaning of the FLSA;  b. Whether the Defendants failed to pay the Collective Action Members the   minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and the regulations promulgated   thereunder;   c. Whether the Defendants failed to pay the Collective Action Members   overtime wages for all hours worked above forty (40) each workweek in   violation of the FLSA and the regulation promulgated thereunder;   d. Whether the Defendants failed to pay the Collective Action Members   spread of hours payment for each day an employee worked over 10 hours;  e. Whether the Defendants failed to provide the Collective Action Members   with a wage notice at the time of hiring as required by the NYLL;  13  f. Whether the Defendants’ violations of the FLSA are willful as that term is   used within the context of the FLSA; and,   g. Whether the Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder,   including but not limited to compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages,  interest, costs and disbursements and attorneys’ fees.    68.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.    69.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by  Defendants’ unlawful conduct.   70.  Plaintiff brings her NYLL claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.  R. C. P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt persons employed by Defendants on or after the  date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case as defined herein (the “Class  Period”).    71.  All said persons, including Plaintiff, 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 rate of pay for each Class Member is also determinable from Defendants’ records. For  purpose 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.    72.  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 parities and the Court. Although the  precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts on which the calculation of the number  14  is presently within the sole control of the Defendants, upon information and belief, there are more  than ten (10) members of the class.    73.  Plaintiff’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 that 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 failing to pay minimum wage, and overtime compensation.  Defendants’ corporation wide policies and practices, including but not limited to their failure to  provide a wage notice at the time of hiring, affected all Class members similarly, and Defendants  benefited from the same type of unfair and/ or wrongful acts as to each Class member. Plaintiff  and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same  unlawful policies, practices and procedures.    74.  Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has no  interests antagonistic to the Class. Plaintiff are represented by attorneys who are experienced and  competent in representing Plaintiff in both class action and wage and hour employment litigation  cases.    75.  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 Class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute corporate  defendants. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to  prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the  unnecessary duplication of efforts and expenses that numerous individual actions engender. The  losses, injuries, and damages suffered by each of the individual Class members are small in the  sense pertinent to a class action analysis, thus the expenses and burden of individual litigation  15  would make it extremely difficult or impossible for the individual Class members to redress the  wrongs done to them. Further, 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.    76.  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.    77.  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 and the Class within the meaning  of the New York law;   b. Whether Defendants paid Plaintiff and Class members the New York  minimum wage for all hours worked;   16  c. Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to overtime under the New  York Labor Law;   d. Whether Defendants maintained a policy, pattern and/or practice of failing  to pay  e. Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class spread-of-hours pay as required by the  78.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    79.  At all relevant times, upon information and belief, Defendants have been, and  continue to be, “employers” engaged in interstate “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods”  for “commerce,” within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§206(a) and §§207(a). Further,  Plaintiff is covered within the meaning of FLSA, U.S.C. §§206(a) and 207(a).    80.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed “employees” including Plaintiff, within  the meaning of FLSA.   17   81.  Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants have had gross  revenues in excess of $500,000.    82.  The FLSA provides that any employer engaged in commerce shall pay employees  the applicable minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).    83.  At all relevant times, Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay the  statutory minimum wage to Plaintiff, and the collective action members, for some or all of the  hours they worked.    84.  The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C.  §206 shall be liable to the employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum  compensation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.    85.  Defendants knowingly and willfully disregarded the provisions of the FLSA as  evidenced by failing to compensate Plaintiff and Collective Class Members at the statutory  minimum wage when they knew or should have known such was due and that failing to do so  would financially injure Plaintiff and Collective Action members.   86.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    87.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff were employed by Defendants within the meaning  of New York Labor Law §§2 and 651.    88.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay the minimum wage shall be liable, in addition to the amount of any underpayments, for  liquidated damages equal to the total of such under-payments found to be due the employee.   18   89.  Defendants knowingly and willfully violated Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ rights  by failing to pay them minimum wages in the lawful amount for hours worked.   90.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    91.  The FLSA provides that no employer engaged in commerce shall employ a covered  employee for a work week longer than forty (40) hours unless such employee receives  compensation for employment in excess of forty (40) hours at a rate not less than one and one-half  times the regular rate at which he or she is employed, or one and one-half times the minimum  wage, whichever is greater. 29 USC §207(a).    92.  The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C.  §207 shall be liable to the employees affected in the amount of their unpaid overtime  compensation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. 29 USC §216(b).    93.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective their overtime pay  violated the FLSA.    94.  At all relevant times, Defendants had, and continue to have, a policy of practice of  refusing to pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and a half to Plaintiff and  Collective Action Members for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, which  violated and continues to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§201, et seq., including 29 U.S.C.  §§207(a)(1) and 215(a).    95.  The FLSA and supporting regulations required employers to notify employees of  employment law requires employers to notify employment law requirements. 29 C.F.R. §516.4.   19   96.  Defendants willfully failed to notify Plaintiff and FLSA Collective of the  requirements of the employment laws in order to facilitate their exploitation of Plaintiff’s and  FLSA Collectives’ labor.    97.  Defendants knowingly and willfully disregarded the provisions of the FLSA as  evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and Collective Members the statutory overtime  rate of time and one half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week when they knew or  should have known such was due and that failing to do so would financially injure Plaintiff and  Collective Action Members.   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Spread of Hour Pay]  102.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   20  103.  The NYLL requires employers to pay an extra hour’s pay for every day that an  employee works an interval in excess of ten hours pursuant to NYLL §§190, et seq., and §§650,  et seq., and New York State Department of Labor regulations §146-1.6.   104.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff’s and FLSA Collective spread-of-hours pay was  not in good faith.   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—New York Pay Stub Requirement]  108.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  21  though fully set forth herein.  109.  The NYLL and supporting regulations require employers to provide detailed  paystub information to employees every payday. NYLL §195-1(d).  110.  Defendants have failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the New York  Labor Law with respect to compensation of each Plaintiff, and did not provide the pay stub on or  after each Plaintiff’s payday.  111.  Due to Defendants’ violations of New York Labor Law, Plaintiff is entitled to  recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, $250 for each workday of the violation, up to  $5,000 for Plaintiff for costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to New York Labor Law N.Y. Lab. Law  §198(1-d).  [Violation of New York Labor Law—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class]  