12.! Plaintiffs have been employed as servers, host/hostesses, and/or coat checkers by  Defendants beginning at various times as early as March 2014, as described in the above  paragraphs.   13.! At all relevant times, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §206 has required  the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs a minimum wage of $8.00 per hour.   14.! At all relevant times, the New York Minimum Wage Act, New York Labor Law  §652, has required the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages of:  $7.15 from January 1, 2007 to July 23, 2009;  $7.25 from July 24, 2009 to December 30, 2013;  $8.00 from December 30, 2013 to December 31, 2014;  $8.75 from December 31, 2014 to December 30, 2014; and  $9.00 from December 31, 2015.   15.! Defendants paid Plaintiffs a sub-minimum hourly wages under the tip-credit  provisions of the FLSA and New York Labor Law.  These provisions permit employers of tipped  employees to pay wages of less than the minimum wage, provided employers comply with the  other requirements of the tip-credit provisions.  The Defendants violated these requirements by  requiring Plaintiffs to participate in an invalid tip pool, whereby Plaintiffs must pay a percentage  of their tips or a specified amount to management.  As a result of Defendants’ improper use of  the tip credit provisions of the FLSA and New York Labor Law, Defendants paid Plaintiffs based  on an incorrectly low rate of pay.   17.! The Defendants have not, as required by law, notified the Plaintiffs of their  intention to pay them less than the full minimum wage on the basis of the applicable statutory and  regulatory provisions relating to the tip credit and tip allowance.   18.! The Defendants have willfully paid Plaintiffs for their services and labor at hourly  rates below the applicable minimum hourly wages, in violation of the FLSA and New York  Minimum Wage Act.   19.! At all relevant times, both federal and state law has required the Defendants to  pay Plaintiffs overtime wages at a wage rate of 1.5 times their regular rate for hours worked in  excess of forty (40) hours a week.   20.! During many, if not all, weeks in which Plaintiffs were employed by the  Defendants, the Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, but were not  compensated for their overtime hours pursuant to the FLSA or New York Labor Law.   21.! The Defendants willfully paid Plaintiffs for their services and labor at a rate that  is less than one and a half times the minimum wage, the minimum regular rate of pay to  which Plaintiffs are entitled.   22.! Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard for the fact that its failure to pay  Plaintiffs overtime compensation was in violation of the FLSA.   23.! Defendants improperly failed to pay Plaintiffs and class members all  compensation rightfully due, including but not limited to, overtime pay, minimum wages and  earned tips, amongst other things.    25.! Defendants managed Plaintiffs’ work, including the amount of overtime required  to be worked, and dictated, controlled and ratified the wage and hour and all related employee  compensation policies of Defendants at issue in this lawsuit.  Defendants’ wage and hour  practices and policies are uniform and disseminated by senior management. Defendants accepted  all overtime and other work performed by Plaintiffs, accepted all benefits of that work and never  warned or disciplined plaintiffs for working overtime.   26.! Defendants’ actions were willful and not in good faith.  37.! At all time relevant hereto, the New York Labor Law prohibited an employer  from demanding that an employee relinquish any part of a gratuity received by that employee,  from accepting any part of a gratuity received by an employee and/or from retaining any part of a  gratuity for an employee or of any charge purporting to be a gratuity for an employee.  N.Y. Lab.  Law §196-d.   38.! Throughout Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendants demanded and accepted  gratuities received by Plaintiffs and retained parts of gratuities intended for Plaintiffs and/or  otherwise failed to forward to Plaintiffs gratuities the Plaintiffs were entitled to receive.  The  sums demanded, accepted and/or retained by Defendants or of gratuities left for Plaintiffs were  determined exclusively by Defendants.   39.! None of the gratuities initially left by customers for Plaintiffs which were  demanded and/or accepted by Defendants constituted (a) an allowance from the minimum wage  due Plaintiffs under Article 19 of the Labor Law permitted by law or regulation, (b) a practice in  connection with a banquet or other special function where a fixed percentage of a patron’s bill  was added for gratuities as permitted by law or regulation, or (c) a sharing of tips by a waiter  with a busboy or similar employee permitted by law or regulation.   41.! This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23  because:  a.! The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;  b.! There are questions of law or fact that are common to the class;  c.! The claims or defenses of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims or  defenses of the class; and,  d.! The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  class.  Numerosity   42.! On information and belief, the total number of putative class members consists of  at least one hundred individuals.  The exact number of class members may be determined from  Defendants’ records.  Commonality   50.! Plaintiffs anticipate that Defendants will raise defenses that are common to the  class.  Adequacy   51.! The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.   They have retained experienced counsel who are competent in the prosecution of complex  litigation and who have experience acting as class counsel specifically in wage and hour  litigation.  Typicality   52.! The claims asserted by the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the class members they  seek to represent.  The Named Plaintiffs have the same interest and suffer from the same injuries  as the class members.   54.! The numerous common questions of law and fact set forth in the commonality  discussion above predominate over individual questions because Defendants’ alleged underlying  activities and impact of their policies and practices affected class members in the same manner.   All class members sustained similar losses, injuries, and damages arising out of the same  unlawful policies, practices and procedures.    55.! A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy because the individual joinder of the parties is impracticable.   Class action treatment will allow a large number of similarly-situated persons to prosecute their  common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently and without the unnecessary  duplication of effort and expenses if these claims were brought individually.  Moreover, as the  damages suffered by each class member may be relatively small, the expenses and burden of  individual litigation would make it difficult for plaintiffs to bring individual claims.  The  presentation of separate actions by individual class members could create a risk of inconsistent  and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and/or  substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect their interests.    56.! Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all the allegations in the above paragraphs.   57.! At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants within  the meaning of the FLSA, specifically 29 U.S.C. § 203.   58.! At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were engaged in commerce or the  production of goods for commerce, or were employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or  in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA.   59.! Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the applicable minimum hourly wage, in  violation of 29 U.S.C. §206(a).  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs suffered  a loss of wages.   60.! Defendants were not entitled to reduce the minimum wage by applying the tip  credit allowance that is available under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), and supporting federal  regulations, including but not limited to 29 C.F.R. § 531.50 et seq., because Defendants did not  inform Plaintiffs of these provisions and did not permit Plaintiffs to retain all tips they received,  in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).   61.! Upon information and belief, Defendants unlawfully retained portions of the tips  received by Plaintiffs in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), and supporting regulations.   62.! Throughout the limitations period covered by these claims, Defendants knowingly  failed to pay Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage for each hour worked.   63.! Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage was willful within the  meaning of the FLSA.   65.! Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all the allegations in the above paragraphs.   66.! At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants within  the meaning of New York Labor Law §§2 and 651.   67.! Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs at the applicable minimum hourly  wage, in violation of the New York Minimum Wage Act, specifically New York Labor Law  §652.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs suffered a loss of wages.   68.! Due to Defendants’ New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to  recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, their unpaid minimum wages, liquidated  damages,  as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, including interest.  69.! Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all the allegations in the above paragraphs.   70.! At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants  within the meaning of the FLSA, specifically 29 U.S.C. § 203.   72.! Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for hours worked in  excess of forty per week at a wage rate of 1.5 times the minimum wage, the minimum regular  rate of pay to which plaintiffs were entitled under 29 U.S.C. § 206(a), in violation of 29 U.S.C. §  207(a)(1).  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful practices, Plaintiffs suffered a loss of wages.   73.! Due to Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from  Defendants their unpaid overtime wages and an equal amount in the form of liquidated  damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, including interest, pursuant  to the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  74.! Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all the allegations in the above paragraphs.   75.! At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants  within the meaning of New York Labor Law §§ 2 and 651.   76.! During many, if not all, weeks in which Plaintiffs were employed by the  Defendants, the Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, but were not  compensated for their overtime hours.   78.! Due to Defendants’ New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to  recover from Defendants, their unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damaes, as well as  reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, including interest.  79.! Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all the allegations in the above paragraphs.   80.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants  within the meaning of the FLSA, specifically 29 U.S.C. § 203.   81.  Defendants controlled the tip collection and distribution process in violation of  New York Labor Law § 196-d.   82.  Defendants unlawfully demanded or accepted part of the gratuities received by  and/or intended for Plaintiffs in violation of New York Labor Law § 196-d and supporting  regulations.   83.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have  suffered and will continue to suffer lost wages and other damages.   84.  As a result of Defendants’ violation of New York  Labor Law, Plaintiffs are  entitled to recover their unpaid wages, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages and reasonable  attorneys’ fees and costs of this action.  Illegal Deductions From Gratuities Under New York Labor Law   Minimum Wages Under New York Labor Law   Overtime Wages Under New York Labor Law   Overtime Wages Under the Fair Labor Standards Act  