 [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]   21.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.   22.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of 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.    23.  From on or about April 16, 2014 to February 2, 2018, Plaintiff was hired by  Defendants to work as a cleaning person, stock up person, and customer service provider for  Defendants’ clothing store located at 32 W. 28th Street, New York, NY 10001.   24.   During her employment, Plaintiff regularly worked over ten (10) hours per day and  over forty (40) hours per week. Specifically, Plaintiff worked six days a week with a varied off  day. Her daily schedule ran from around 9:00am to around 7:30pm each day with one varied day  off in her workweek. Plaintiff did not have any uninterrupted break during each of her work day,  as such, Plaintiff worked approximately 63 hours per week.    25.  Defendants did not implement any means (time punch card, written time sheets,  computer time logs etc.) to track the number of hours Plaintiff actually worked.   27.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for minimum wages according to state and  federal laws.   28.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for overtime compensation according to  state and federal laws.   29.  Plaintiff was not compensated for New York’s “spread of hours” premium for shifts  that lasted longer than ten (10) hours.    30.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a wage notices at the time of her hiring.    31.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.    32.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of overtime and the “spread of hours”  premium would economically injure Plaintiff and the Class Members by their violation of federal  and state laws.    33.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was not exempt under federal and state  laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime.     34.  Plaintiff and the New York Class Members’ workdays frequently lasted longer than  10 hours.     35.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other Class members’ New York’s “spread of  hours” premium for every day in which they worked over 10 hours.     37.  Defendants committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs, and the Class.  38.  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.    39.  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.   40.  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 their clothing store for  up to the last three (3) years, through entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective Action  Period”) and whom failed to receive spread-of-hours pay, and 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.    42.  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.   43.  This action should be certified as a collective action because the prosecution of  separate actions by individual members of the collective action would risk creating either  inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members of this class 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.    44.  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.    46.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.    47.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by  Defendants’ unlawful conduct.   49.  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.    50.  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  is presently within the sole control of the Defendants, upon information and belief, there are more  than ten (10) members of the class.    51.  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 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.    54.  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.     56.  Plaintiff  re-alleges  and  incorporates  by  reference  all  preceding  paragraphs  as   though fully set forth herein.    57.  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).    58.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed “employees” including Plaintiff, within  the meaning of FLSA.    59.  Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants have had gross  revenues in excess of $500,000.    60.  The FLSA provides that any employer engaged in commerce shall pay employees  the applicable minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).    61.  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.    63.  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.   64.  Plaintiff  re-alleges  and  incorporates  by  reference  all  preceding  paragraphs  as   though fully set forth herein.    65.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the meaning of  New York Labor Law §§2 and 651.    66.  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.    67.  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.   68.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    70.  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).    71.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective their overtime pay  violated the FLSA.    72.  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).    73.  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.    74.  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.    76.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    77.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay proper overtime compensation 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.    78.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class their overtime pay  violated the NYLL.    79.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class was not in good faith.   80.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    81.  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.    82.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class spread-of-hours pay was not  in good faith.   84.  The NYLL and supporting regulations require employers to provide written notice  of the rate or rates of pay and the basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary,  piece, commission, or other; allowances, if any, claimed as a part of minimum wage, including  tip, meal, or lodging allowances; the regular pay day designated by the employer; the name of the  employer; any “doing business as” names used by the employer; the physical address of  employer’s main office or principal place of business, and a mailing address if different; the  telephone number of the employer.  NYLL §195-1(a).   85.  Defendants intentionally failed to provide notice to employees in violation of  New York Labor Law § 195, which requires all employers to provide written notice in the  employee’s primary language about the terms and conditions of employment related to rate of pay,  regular pay cycle and rate of overtime on his or her first day of employment.   86.  Defendants not only did not provide notice to each employee at Time of Hire, but  failed to provide notice to each Plaintiff even after the fact.   87.  Due to Defendants’ violations of New York Labor Law, 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).  88.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   90.  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 paystub on or  after each Plaintiff’s payday.   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Spread of Time Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Overtime Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective]   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Time of Hire Wage Notice Requirement]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—New York Pay Stub Requirement]  