         FLSA Overtime Violations, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.          (on behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective)   20.  The claims in this Complaint arising out of the FLSA are brought by Plaintiff on behalf of  himself and other similarly situated persons (vehicle cleaners, detailers and service parkers)  who are current and former employees of Village Auto Wash since the date three years prior  to the filing of this Complaint who elect to opt-in to this action (the “FLSA Collective”).   21.  The FLSA Collective consists of approximately twenty (20) similarly situated current and  former vehicle cleaners, detailers and service parkers who have been victims of Defendants’  common policy and practices that have violated their rights under the FLSA by, inter alia,  willfully denying them overtime wages.   23.  Defendants have engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of  minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation.  Defendants’ unlawful  conduct has been intentional, willful and in bad faith, and has caused significant damage to  Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.     24.  The FLSA Collective would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised notice of the  present lawsuit and the opportunity to join the present lawsuit.  Those similarly situated  employees are known to Defendants, are readily identifiable and locatable through their  records.  These similarly situated employees should be notified of and allowed to opt into this  action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).     25.  The positions of vehicle cleaners, detailers and service parkers are not exempt positions and  have never been exempt.  Vehicle cleaners, detailers and service parkers were not paid the  correct overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.    26.  The FLSA require that employers pay all employees at least one and one-half (1.5) times the  employee’s wage for all hours worked in excess of 40 during any workweek, unless they are  exempt from coverage.     27.  Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective at one and  one-half (1.5) times the employee’s wage for all hours worked in excess of 40 during any  workweek.  The exact accounting of such discrepancy can only be determined through  discovery.     29.  Defendants paid Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective wages without any  accompanying statement listing:  the rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by  the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission or other; the regular hourly rate or rates  of pay; the overtime hours worked; gross wages; deductions; allowances, if any, claimed as  part of the minimum wage; and net wages in accordance with the FLSA.  30.  Plaintiff worked on behalf of Defendants from June 2016 until January 23, 2018 at two  different locations.   31.  From approximately 2014 through December 2017, Village Auto Wash was located at 152 S  Broad St., Ridgewood, NJ, 07093.   32.  Following the closure of the 152 S Broad St. location, Village Auto Wash LLC has continued  to service customers at the location of the Teterboro Chrysler Jeep Dodge RAM at 469 Route  46, Little Ferry, NJ, 07643.    33.  On information and belief, the address of the corporate office of Village Auto Wash LLC is  5601 JF Kennedy Blvd. East Apt 21H, West New York, NJ, 07093.   34.  On information and belief, Defendant Alex Rodriguez owned and operated Village Auto  Wash LLC at both locations (Ridgewood and Little Ferry, respectively).  Plaintiff Velez’s Employment at 152 S Broad St.   36.  Throughout Plaintiff’s employment at 152 S Broad St., Defendants Rodriguez and Village  Auto Wash required Plaintiff to “clock in” at the start of his workday and “clock out” at the  end of the workday, and Plaintiff complied with this directive.    37.  However, throughout Plaintiff’s employment at 152 S Broad St., Plaintiff’s paystubs  incorrectly listed his hours worked.   38.  For example, Plaintiff’s paystub for the pay period between July 3, 2016 and July 9, 2016  indicates that Plaintiff worked 34 total hours.    39.  However, his clock-in and clock-out records for that same time period indicates Plaintiff  worked a total of 54 hours and 9 minutes.    40.  Another example of the discrepancy between the hours reported on Plaintiff’s paystubs and  the hours indicted on Plaintiff’s clock-in and clock-out records is the pay period spanning  October 23, 2016 through October 29, 2016.    41.  During this period, Plaintiff’s paystubs indicate that he worked only 38 hours.     42.  However,  his clock-in records show he actually worked 60 hours.     43.  Plaintiff was paid no overtime premium for his work over 40 hours in this week.     44.  The practice of falsely reporting Plaintiff’s hours on his paystubs continued throughout  Plaintiff’s employment.   45.  In the pay period between March 19, 2017 and March 25, 2017, Plaintiff’s paystubs indicate  he was paid for 33.50 hours of work.   46.  However, Plaintiff’s  clock-in records indicate he worked 63 hours and 48 minutes during the  same period.     48.  The hours on the paystubs created by Defendants do not correspond to the hours on  Plaintiff’s clock-in records in any given pay period throughout Plaintiff’s employment at the  152 S Broad St. location.    Plaintiff Velez’s Work Schedule and Salary at 152 S Broad St.   49.  From the beginning of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants at 152 S Broad St. in June  2016 through March 2017, on average Plaintiff worked six (6) days per week.   50.  Although Plaintiff’s work schedule varied, he worked approximately 52 hours per week for  Defendants at 152 S Broad St.   51.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a scheduled meal break.      52.  In fact, Plaintiff did not receive any scheduled breaks for that matter, during the time period  Plaintiff worked 152 S Broad St.   53.  Even though Plaintiff was not exempt, he was not paid time and one-half for all work  performed after 40 hours on behalf of Defendants.   54.  Therefore, throughout Plaintiff Velez’s employment at 152 S Broad St., he was paid between  $9 and $10 per hour for all hours worked.   55.  Although Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours, Plaintiff’s paystubs always listed  him as having worked less than 40 hours worked per week.   56.  Each week, Plaintiff received additional pay in cash in addition to the hours listed in his  paystub.  The additional pay in cash included payment at straight time for the work  performed after 40 hours, but no overtime premium.   58.  By the end of March 2017, after the closure of Village Auto Wash LLC’s location at 152 S  Broad St., Plaintiff was transferred to Village Auto Wash LLC’s location operating on the  premises of Defendant Teterboro Automall at 469 Route 46 in Little Falls, NJ.   59.  From the end of March 2017 through January 23, 2018, Plaintiff was jointly employed by all  Defendants at 469 Route 46 in Little Falls, NJ.    60.  Throughout Plaintiff’s employment at 469 Route 46, Defendants did not require Plaintiff to  “clock in” or use any other formal method with respect to tracking his hours.   61.  While employed at the Teterboro Automall location at 469 Route 46, Plaintiff received work  assignments from employees of Teterboro Automall, and was supervised by Teterboro  Automall employees, in addition to Rodriguez.    62.  For example, “Tim”, the head car salesman at Teterboro Chrysler, “Dave” the son of the  owner and “Dave”, the head of the mechanics all gave Plaintiff directions with respect to  how to perform his job duties.     63.  These job duties included, but were not limited to, the following: washing cars, cleaning  showroom cars, taking out scratches from vehicles and other similarly car cleaning and  detailing activities.     64.  In fact, Alex Rodriguez was frequently not at Tereboro Chrystler.  Usually, Rodriguez was  just there on Wednesdays to pay Plaintiff.     Plaintiff Velez’s Work Schedule and Salary at 469 Route 46   65.  From the beginning of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants at 469 Route 46 from the end  of March 2017 through January 2018, Plaintiff worked six (6) days per week.   67.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with scheduled meal breaks, or any scheduled breaks for  that matter, during the time period Plaintiff worked for Defendants at 469 Route 46.   68.  Throughout Plaintiff’s employment at 469 Route 46, Defendants paid Plaintiff by check with  no notation indicating his hours worked, rate of pay, or deductions or withholdings.     69.  Throughout Plaintiff’s employment at 469 Route 46, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly  fee.    70.  This flat weekly salary was $800 per week.   71.  Even though Plaintiff was not exempt, he was not paid time and one-half for all work  performed after 40 hours on behalf of Defendants.  Village Auto Wash LLC   Retaliated Against Plaintiff for Engaging in Protected Activity   72.  On Tuesday, January 23, 2018, Plaintiff asked Defendant Rodriguez to be paid overtime for  the work he performed after 40 hours.    73.  Defendant Rodriguez answer to Plaintiff’s request stating that “I can’t pay you more, if you  don’t like it you can leave.”   74.  On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 Defendants’ attorney mailed a letter to Plaintiff stating that  his employment with Defendants was terminated.    76.  On information and belief, Defendants are incorrectly listing many of their employees as  independent contractors.   77.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding paragraphs.    78.  Throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  workweek.     79.  At all relevant times throughout his employment, Defendants operated under a policy of  willfully failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff one and one-half (1.5) times the regular hourly  rate of pay for work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, and in willfully failing to  keep records required by the FLSA, even though Plaintiff was entitled to receive overtime  payments.    80.  At all relevant times throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants willfully, regularly and  repeatedly failed to pay the required overtime rate of one and one-half (1.5) times his regular  hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.    81.  Defendants’ decision not to pay overtime was willful.    82.  Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of his unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated  damages as provided by the FLSA for overtime violations, attorneys’ fees and costs, and  such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper.  84.  29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) makes it unlawful for an employer “to discharge or in any manner  discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or  instituted or caused to be instituted any proceedings under or related to this chapter [of the  Unlawful Retaliation in Violation of the FLSA § 215(a)(3)      (on behalf of Plaintiff)   