19.  Ms. Alvelo brings an FLSA claim for unpaid overtime on behalf of herself and all  similarly situated persons who work or have worked for Defendant as Operations Account  Representatives and who elect to opt in to this action (the “FLSA Collective”).   20.  Ms. Alvelo and the FLSA Collective are current and former employees of the  Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA and were employed by Defendant within three years  of the date of the filing of this Complaint.  See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   21.  Defendant is liable under the FLSA for misclassifying Ms. Alvelo as an exempt  employee and failing to properly compensate her for her overtime hours.  There are also many  similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant who have been misclassified as  exempt, and underpaid in violation of the FLSA who 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 Defendant, are readily identifiable, and can be located  through Defendants’ records.  Notice should be sent to the FLSA Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b).  23.  At all relevant times, Ms. Alvelo and members of the proposed Rule 23 Class were  employees within the meaning of the NYSLL.   24.  The persons in the Rule 23 class described above are so numerous that joinder of  all members is impracticable.  Although the precise number of such persons is not known to Ms.  Alvelo, the facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are within Defendant’s sole  control.   25.  Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Rule 23 class, thereby  making final injunctive or declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.     26.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Rule 23 class that predominate  over any questions solely affecting individual members of the class, including but not limited to:  (a) whether Defendant has failed or refused to pay Ms. Alvelo and the Rule 23 class members  overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week in violation of the NYSLL;  (b) whether Defendant kept true and accurate time records for all hours worked by Ms. Alvelo and  the Rule 23 class; (c); the nature and extent of Rule 23 Class-wide injury and the appropriate  measure of damages for the class; (d) whether Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to pay  Ms. Alvelo and the Rule 23 Class members their overtime wages was willful or carried out with  reckless disregard of the law; and (e) whether Defendant has a policy or practice of misclassifying  Operations Account Representatives as exempt from the overtime provisions of the NYSLL.   28.  Ms. Alvelo will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Rule  23 Class.   29.  Ms. Alvelo has retained counsel that is competent and experienced in class actions  and in labor and employment litigation, including wage and hour matters.   30.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation – particularly in the context of a wage and hour litigation like this,  where individual Ms. Alvelo may lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in  federal court against corporate defendants.  The Rule 23 Class members have been damaged and  are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants’ unlawful and uniform policies, practices and  procedures.  Although the relative damages suffered by individual Rule 23 Class members are not  de minimis, such damages are small compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution  of this litigation.  In addition, class treatment is superior because it will obviate the need for unduly  duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments about Defendants’ practices.  31.  Consistent with Defendant’s policies and practices, Ms. Alvelo and the members  of the proposed FLSA Collective and the Rule 23 Class frequently worked in excess of 40 hours  per workweek without being paid overtime wages.   33.  As part of their regular business practice, Defendant intentionally, willfully and  repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice or policy of violating the FLSA and the NYSLL as to Ms.  Alvelo and the members of the proposed FLSA Collective and the Rule 23 Class.  This policy or  practice included but is not limited to: (a) willfully misclassifying the Operations Account  Representatives, including Ms. Alvelo and the members of the proposed FLSA Collective and the  Rule 23 Class, as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and the NYSLL; (b)  willfully failing to pay its Operations Account Representatives, including Ms. Alvelo and the  members of the proposed FLSA Collective and the Rule 23 Class, overtime wages for hours  worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek; and (c) willfully failing to record all the time that  its employees, including Ms. Alvelo and the members of the proposed FLSA Collective and the  Rule 23 Class, worked for its benefit.   34.  Defendant’s unlawful conduct as described in this Complaint was carried out  pursuant to a corporate policy or practice of minimizing labor costs by misclassifying Operations  Account Representatives as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and the NYSLL,  and violating the FLSA and the NYSLL by failing to pay Operations Account Representatives  overtime premiums for time they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.   36.  All of Defendant’s Operations Account Representatives, perform the same  fundamental and primary duties, all of which relate to servicing the insurance needs of customers.   These positions are not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and NYSLL and their  duties: (a) do not entail the exercise of discretion and independent judgment; (b) are not directly  related to Defendant’s management policies or general operations; (c) do not consist of the  management of Defendant’s enterprises –  or a customarily recognized department or subdivision;  (d) do not include the supervision of at least 2 other full-time employees; and, (e) do not include  hiring or firing authority, or any other authority with regard to the status of other employees.   37.  Defendant’s unlawful conduct has been repeated and was consistent as to all its  Operation Account Representatives.  38.  Ms. Alvelo was employed by Defendants from June 2010 until February 20, 2018.  She held numerous positions with the Company.  From November 2014 until February 20, 2018  she was employed as an Operations Account Representative. Ms. Alvelo worked from her home  office in the Bronx.  Ms. Alvelo earned approximately $74,000 a year.   39.  Ms. Alvelo functioned primarily as a claims adjuster and primarily serviced health  care providers who were Defendant’s customers.  Ms. Alvelo would assist the health care providers  in researching insurance claims that were denied and/or questions.  Ms. Alvelo was a non-exempt  employee under the FLSA and NYSLL.     41.  Ms. Alvelo used her knowledge and experience in carrying out her duties for  Defendant.  She did not, however, exercise discretion or independent judgment in performing those  duties.  At all times, she followed company procedures and established protocols for servicing the  insurance needs of clients.   42.  Ms. Alvelo had no management role, she did not supervise any employees, and she  had no hiring or firing authority.     43.  Ms. Alvelo regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. Ms. Alvelo was  not paid any over-time at time and half for all work in excess of forty hours per week. Defendant  did not keep time records of her work hours.   44.  Prior to May 2017, Ms. Alvelo did not work any set hours.  She could work any  time she wanted as long as the work got done which required her to work more than 40 hours in  any given workweek.  All her work and the time she worked was recorded on Defendant’s  computer systems so Defendant was aware, or could have become aware, of the hours she was  working beyond 40 in any given workweek.     46.  As a result of working through her lunch hour and routinely working after 5:00  p.m., Ms. Alvelo often worked between 3 and 4 hours of overtime on a weekly basis, or from 10  to 15 hours of overtime monthly for which Defendant failed to pay her.  47.  Ms. Alvelo realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding  paragraphs.   48.  Ms. Alvelo consents in writing to be a party to this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b).   49.  Defendant failed to pay Ms. Alvelo and other similarly situated current and former  employees the overtime wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA.   50.  Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of violating the FLSA, as described  in this Complaint.   51.  Because Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, including improperly classifying Ms.  Alvelo as an exempt employee, and failing to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in  excess of 40 in a workweek, were willful, a three-year statute applies to each violation, pursuant  to 29 U.S.C. § 255.   52.  Defendant’s violations were willful and without good faith or a reasonable basis to  believe that the failure to pay overtime wages was lawful.    54.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, Ms. Alvelo and all other similarly situated  current and former employees have been deprived of overtime compensation in amounts to be  determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages, prejudgment  interest, attorney’s fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  55.  Ms. Alvelo realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding  paragraphs.   56.  Defendant failed to pay Ms. Alvelo and the Rule 23 Class the overtime wages to  which they are entitled under the NYSLL.   57.  By Defendant’s failure to pay Ms. Alvelo and the Rule 23 Class Members overtime  wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, it has willfully violated NYSLL, Article  19, §§ 650 et seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, including  but not limited to the regulations in 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 142.   58.  Defendant’s conduct, as described herein, constitutes a willful violation of the  NYSLL without a good faith or reasonable basis.   59.  Due to Defendant’s violations of the NYSLL, Ms. Alvelo and the Rule 23 Class  Members are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable  attorney’s fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.  61.  Defendant did not provide Ms. Alvelo or the Rule 23 Class with an accurate  statement of wages with each payment of wages as required by NYSLL § 195(3).   62.  Defendant is liable to Ms. Alvelo and the Rule 23 Class in the amount of $2,500  each, together with costs and attorney’s fees.   Unpaid Overtime Wages Under the NYSLL  On Behalf of Ms. Alvelo and Similarly Situated Current and Former Employees   Unpaid Overtime Wages Under the FLSA  On Behalf of Ms. Alvelo and Similarly Situated Current and Former Employees   Violation of the Wage Statement Provisions of the NYSLL  