(The NY WARN Act – NYLL, Brought by Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and   the Class Members)   (The WARN Act – Brought by Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Class Members)   37. For many years, Plaintiffs and the Class Members were employed by Defendant in various  positions in Defendant’s residential service programs.     38. On March 11, 2020, Defendant issued letters to some, but not all, of its employees, including  many of the Plaintiffs and Class Members, that stated that its Board had decided that it “must  immediately begin the process of closing”.  The March 11th letter did not indicate a closing date  but promised to “try to keep everyone informed as this situation develops”.  A copy of the 3/11  letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit “1”.    39. Sixteen days later, on March 27, 2020, Defendant issued letters to some, but not all, of its  employees, including many of the Plaintiffs and Class Members, informing them that their  employment would terminate on or about May 1, 2020.  A copy of the 3/27 letter is annexed  hereto as Exhibit “2”.    41. Several weeks later, on or about April 23, 2020, many of the Plaintiffs and the Class Members  received letters from Defendant indicating that their employment would terminate on April 27,  2020 (“Termination Letter”).  A copy of a Termination Letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit “4”.   42. On or about May 1, 2020, Defendant ceased operations at its Manhattan location.  As a result of  this closure, Defendant terminated almost all of its employees employed at its Manhattan  location, including all of the Plaintiffs and Class Members.   43. As the permanent shutdown of Defendant’s Manhattan location resulted in an employment loss  of more than 50 full-time employees within a thirty (30) day period, the shutdown constituted a  plant closing as defined in the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C .§ 2101(a)(2).   44. As the permanent shutdown of Defendant’s Manhattan location resulted in an employment loss  of more than 25 full-time employees within a thirty (30) day period, the shutdown constituted a  plant closing as defined in the NY WARN Act § 860-(a)(6).   45. Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class Members with sixty (60) days advance notice  of the plant closing as required by the WARN Act, and with ninety (90) days advance notice of  the plant closing as required by the NY WARN Act.   46. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members their wages and salaries following their  respective terminations, and failed to make the 403(b) contributions and provide health insurance  coverage and other employee benefits payments in respect to them for sixty (60) and ninety (90)  calendar days from the date(s) they were given notice of Defendant’s plant closing.     48. Further, the Defendant failed to provide a statement in its Warn Notice stating the basis for  providing less than the required notice, as required by the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C § 2101(b)(3),  and NYLL § 860-(c)(2).   49. Defendant committed the foregoing acts in an effort to suppress their labor costs, and acted  knowingly, intentionally and willfully against the Plaintiffs and the Class Members.   50. Plaintiffs bring their claims pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. (“FRCP”) Rule 23, to recover unpaid  wages, salary, 403(b) contributions, health insurance coverage, other employee benefits, and  other damages on behalf of all individuals employed in the State of New York by Defendant who  were terminated as part of the plant closing ordered by Defendant in the latter half of April/early  May of 2020 and did not receive sixty (60) days notice under the WARN Act and/or ninety (90)  days notice under NY WARN Act.  All said persons, including Plaintiffs, are referred to herein  as the “Class Members” and/or the “Class”.   51. The number, names and addresses of the Class Members are readily ascertainable from the  records of Defendant. The dates of employment and the rates of pay for each Class Member, and  the wages paid to them, are also determinable from Defendant’s records which they are required  by law to maintain.  Notice can be provided by means permissible under FRCP Rule 23.   52. The proposed Class is so numerous – the Warn Notice that Defendant filed with the New York  State Department of Labor identified 141 employees – that joinder of all Class Members is  impracticable, and the disposition of their claims as a Class will benefit the parties and the Court.    54. Defendants’ corporate-wide policies and practices affected all Class Members similarly, and  Defendants benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts as to each Class  Member.    55. As fellow employees of Defendant, which failed to provide them with the notices required by the  WARN Act and the NY WARN Act, Plaintiffs and the other Class Members sustained similar  losses, injuries and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices, and procedures.   56. Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and have no interests  antagonistic to the Class.  Plaintiffs have retained Harrison, Harrison & Associates, competent  and experienced employment litigators.   58.  Upon information and belief, employees of defendants in these types of actions are often afraid  to individually assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation and former employees  are fearful of bringing individual claims because of the fear that doing so could harm their  employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure employment.  A class action  provides 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.    59.  The questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting  only individual Class Members, including whether Defendants failed to provide the Class  Members with the advance written notice of their terminations required by (a) the WARN Act,  and (b) the NY WARN Act.    60.  Absent a class action, many of the Class Members likely will not obtain redress of their injuries.   62. The WARN Act requires that an employer not order closure or a mass layoff until 60 days after it  serves written notice to the affected employees.   63. The failure of Defendant to provide Plaintiffs or the Class Members with the required 60 days  advance notice of Defendant’s plant closing was unconscionable and irresponsible and  constituted a blatant violation of the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2102.  Upon information and  belief, Defendant was aware that it was going to shut down and nonetheless failed to provide its  long-term employees, some of whom had worked for Defendant for more than twenty years, with  the statutorily required notice that it was closing.     64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiffs  and the Class Members have sustained damages, including loss of earnings, in an amount to be  established at trial, and Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, seek damages  in the amount of their respective unpaid wages and health and retirement benefits, pre and post  judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to the WARN Act, and such other legal and  equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper.  65. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by reference  all previous paragraphs as if they were set forth again herein.   66. The failure of Defendant to provide Plaintiffs or the Class Members with the required 90 days  advance notice of Defendant’s plant closing was unconscionable and irresponsible, and  constituted a blatant violation of the NY WARN Act, NYLL § 860-(b).    