 [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective]   22.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.   24.  From mid-April 2017 to January 31, 2018 Plaintiff Jian Zhang was hired by  Defendants to work as a cook for Defendants’ restaurant located at 2050 Western Ave.,  Guilderland, NY 12084.   25.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff Jian Zhang for his overtime hours worked  over forty (40) each workweek according to state and federal laws.    26.  Throughout the entire period of time when Plaintiff Jian Zhang was employed by  the Defendants, Plaintiff Jian Zhang worked from 11am to 10pm daily for six days per week.   Plaintiff Jian Zhang had one day off per week. Plaintiff worked at least 66 hours a week.     27.  Plaintiff Jian Zhang was paid a flat rate of $4800 per month for the first two months  of his employment, then raised to $5000 per month until the end of his employment.   28.  Plaintiff Jian Zhang was paid bi-weekly.  Defendant “Jane” Chen (first name  unknown) a/k/a “Female Boss” determined work schedule and paid the Plaintiff in cash.   29.  From mid-April 2017 to January 31, 2018 Plaintiff En Rong Zhang was hired by  Defendants to work as a cook for Defendants’ restaurant located at 2050 Western Ave.,  Guilderland, NY 12084.   30.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff Chen minimum wage or overtime hours  worked over forty (40) each workweek according to state and federal laws.    31.  Throughout the entire period of his employment, Plaintiff En Rong Zhang worked  from 11am to 10pm daily for six days per week.  Plaintiff En Rong Zhang had one day off per  week. Plaintiff worked at least 66 hours a week.     33.  Plaintiff En Rong Zhang was paid bi-weekly.  Defendant “Jane” (first name  unknown) Chen a/k/a “Female Boss” determined work schedule and paid the Plaintiff in cash.   34.  Defendants did not maintain accurate, contemporaneous records of the Plaintiffs’  wages or hours worked. For instance, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs in cash.   35.  Plaintiffs were not compensated for New York’s “spread of hours” premium for  shifts that lasted longer than ten (10) hours, six days each week.    36.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs for any overtime hours worked over forty  (40) each workweek according to state and federal laws.    37.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with a wage notice at the time of hiring.    38.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with any wage statement.    39.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.    40.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of overtime and the “spread of hours”  premium would economically injure Plaintiffs and the Class Members by their violation of federal  and state laws.    41.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs were not exempt under federal and state  laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime.     42.  Plaintiffs and the New York Class Members’ workdays always lasted longer than  10 hours.     43.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other Class members’ New York’s “spread  of hours” premium for every day in which they worked over 10 hours.     45.  Defendants did not post the required New York State Department of Labor posters  regarding minimum wage pay rates, overtime pay, tip credit and pay day.   46.  Defendants committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiffs, the FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class.  47.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time  and one-half) in violation of the FLSA and the supporting federal and New York State Department  of Labor Regulations.    48.  Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all other and former non- exempt employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants for up to the last three (3)  years, through entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective Action Period”) and whom failed to  receive 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.    50.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action  Members, and has retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the field of employment  law and class action litigation. Plaintiffs have no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with  those members of this collective action.   51.  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 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.    52.  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.    54.  Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.    55.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by  Defendants’ unlawful conduct.   56.  Plaintiffs bring their 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 at SHU  Chinese Restaurant on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this  case as defined herein (the “Class Period”).    58.  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 thirty (30) members of the class.    59.  Plaintiffs’ 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 wages. 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. Plaintiffs and other  Class members sustained similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same unlawful  policies, practices and procedures.    61.  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  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.     63.  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 Plaintiffs and the Class within the meaning of the New  York law;   b. Whether  Defendants  paid  Plaintiffs  and  Class  members  the  New  York minimum  wage for all hours worked   c. Whether Plaintiffs 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  Plaintiff  and  the  Rule  23  Class  spread-of-hours  pay  as  required  by  the NYLL;   e. Whether the Defendants provided wage notices at the time of hiring to Plaintiff and class  members as required by the NYLL;  f. At what common rate, or rates subject to common method of calculation were and are  the Defendants required to pay the Class members for their work.  65.  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, Plaintiffs are covered within the meaning of FLSA, U.S.C. §§206(a) and 207(a).    66.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed “employees” including Plaintiffs,  within the meaning of FLSA.    67.  Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants have had gross  revenues in excess of $500,000.    68.  The FLSA provides that any employer engaged in commerce shall pay employees  the applicable minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).    69.  At  all  relevant  times,  Defendants  had  a  policy  and  practice  of  refusing  to   pay  the statutory minimum wage to Plaintiffs, and the collective action members, for some or all  of the hours they worked.    70.  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.    72.  Plaintiffs  and the Rule 23 Class re-allege  and  incorporate  by  reference  all   preceding  paragraphs  as  though fully set forth herein.    73.  At all relevant times, plaintiffs were employed by Defendants within the meaning  of New York Labor Law §§2 and 651.    74.  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.    75.  Defendants knowingly and willfully violated Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights  by failing to pay them minimum wages in the lawful amount for hours worked.  76.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.    77.  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).    79.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective their overtime pay  violated the FLSA.    80.  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 Plaintiffs  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).    81.  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.    82.  Defendants  willfully  failed  to  notify  Plaintiffs  and  FLSA  Collective  of  the  requirements  of  the  employment  laws  in  order  to  facilitate  their  exploitation  of Plaintiffs’  and FLSA Collectives’ labor.    83.  Defendants  knowingly  and  willfully  disregarded  the  provisions  of  the  FLSA   as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiffs and Collective Class 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.   85.  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.    86.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class their overtime pay  violated the NYLL.    87.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs was not in good faith.   88.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.    89.  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.    90.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class spread-of-hours pay was  not in good faith.   91.  Plaintiffs on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Collective Action  Members and members of the Class repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of the  preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.   93.  Due to the Defendants’ violation of the NYLL, § 195(1), the Plaintiffs are entitled  to recover from the Defendants liquidated damages of $50.00 per workday that the violation  occurred, up to a maximum of $5000.00, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs and disbursements  of the action, pursuant to the NYLL, § 198(1-b).   94.  The Defendants’ NYLL violations have caused the Plaintiff irreparable harm for  which there is no adequate remedy at law.  95.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   96.  The  NYLL  and  supporting  regulations  require  employers  to  provide  detailed   paystub information to employees every payday. NYLL §195-1(d).   97.  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 Plaintiff’s payday.   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Failure to Provide Wage  Notice at the Time of Hiring]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Overtime Pay   Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—New York Pay Stub Requirement]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Spread of Hour Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective]  