19.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 & 216(b), Plaintiffs bring their First Cause of  Action as a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and the following  collective:  All persons employed by Defendants at any time since October 13,  2012 and through the entry of judgment in this case (the  “Collective Action Period”) who worked as construction laborers  (the “Collective Action Members”).   20.  A collective action is appropriate in this circumstance because Plaintiffs and the  Collective Action Members are similarly situated, in that they were all subjected to Defendants’  illegal policy of failing to pay overtime premiums for work performed in excess of forty (40)  hours each week.  As a result of this policy, Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members did not  receive legally-required overtime premium payments for all hours worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per week.   21.  Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members have substantially similar job duties  and are paid pursuant to a similar, if not the same, payment structure.  22.  Pursuant to the NYLL, Plaintiffs bring their Second through Fourth Causes of  Action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and the  following class:  All persons employed by Defendants in New York at any time  since October 13, 2009 and through the entry of judgment in this  case (the “Class Period”) who worked as construction laborers (the  “Class Members”).   23.   24.   The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   25.  Upon information and belief, there are in excess of forty (40) Class Members.   27.  The answer to these questions would drive resolution of the litigation. If a judge  and/or jury agrees with Plaintiff on these issues, Defendants would be liable to all Class  Members for their NYLL wage and hour violations.   28.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Class Members’ claims. Plaintiffs, like all  Class Members, are construction employees of Defendants who worked for Defendants pursuant  to their corporate policies. Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, were, inter alia, not paid overtime  premium pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a given workweek and did not receive  proper wage statements and wage notices. If Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the claims  enumerated in this Complaint, they are also liable to all Class Members.   29.  Plaintiffs and their Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Class. There  are no conflicts between Plaintiffs and the Class Members, and Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit out of  a desire to help all Class Members, not merely out of a desire to recover their own damages.   30.  Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced class action litigators who are well-prepared to  represent the interests of the Class Members.   32.  At all relevant times, Defendants Rovini Construction and Rovini Concrete have  been in the construction contracting and concrete businesses, respectively. Upon information and  belief, Defendants currently own, operate and manage construction contracting and concrete  pouring companies with their principal offices located at 310 Nassau Avenue, Brooklyn, New  York 11222.   33.  According to the New York State Department of State Division of Corporations  filings, Defendant R. Zollo is listed as the Chief Executive Officer of Rovini Construction.  Defendant R. Zollo is also listed as the DOS Process contact in the corporate filings for Rovini  Concrete.   34.  Upon information and belief, the Corporate Defendants operate together as a  single integrated business enterprise with shared ownership, management, employees, policies,  and employment practices.   Plaintiffs’ Work for Defendants   35.  Plaintiff Figueroa was employed by Defendants as a laborer from in or around  October 2014 through in or around August 2, 2015 (the “Figueroa Employment Period”).     36.  Plaintiff Figueroa’s duties included pumping and pouring concrete and installing  metal or wood reinforcing bars to strengthen and hold concrete inside walls. Throughout the  Figueroa Employment Period, Plaintiff Figueroa typically performed work at building sites  located at 42nd Street and 9th Avenue and 43rd Street and 10th Avenue.   38.  Throughout the Figueroa Employment Period, Plaintiff Figueroa was paid  eighteen dollars ($18.00) per hour.   39.  On one occasion in or around October 2014, Plaintiff Figueroa recorded a  conversation between himself and “Alan,” his supervisor, during which he asked Alan why he  appeared to be getting paid for forty eight and one-half (48.5) hours when he had worked fifty- three (53) hours that week. Alan responded by explaining that he was getting the eight-and-a-half  (8.5) hours of overtime at his “hourly rate.”    40.  During another recorded conversation between Alan and Plaintiff Figueroa,  Plaintiff Figueroa asked Alan when he could expect to receive twenty-seven dollars and fifty  cents ($27.50) for overtime hours instead of his regular hourly rate of eighteen dollars ($18.00)  per hour. Alan responded by telling Figueroa, “you’re always getting $18.00 per hour.” When  Figueroa asked if that included hours worked in excess of forty (40), Alan said “yes.” Alan then  went on to say, as an example, that “if you work 14 hours [overtime], that’s still 14 [hours] at  $18.00 per hour.” When Figueroa asked whether he was always going to be paid straight time for  all hours worked, Alan informed him that “they’re supposed to tell you that from day one.”  When Figueroa asked if he would continue to get paid eighteen dollars ($18.00) per hour for  hours worked over forty (40) in a week even if he went to a different job site, Alan confirmed  that “any job for me, it’s all the same.” When Figueroa asked Alan whether he meant that  Figueroa would be paid $18.00 per hour for all hours worked at any job site, Alan replied,  “yeah.”   42.  Plaintiff Jordan’s duties included pouring cement, breaking down re-shores and  performing various cleanup tasks around building sites. Throughout the Jordan Employment  Period, Plaintiff Jordan typically worked on a building located at 43rd Street and 10th Avenue. In  or around early late June or early July 2015, Plaintiff Jordan began performing work on a hotel  building site located at 577 9th Avenue, New York, NY 10036.   43.  Throughout the Jordan Employment Period, Plaintiff Jordan typically worked six  (6) days per week from between 6:30 am and 6:45 am to between approximately 6:00 pm and  7:00 pm, and sometimes later for a total of approximately fifty to fifty-five (50-55) hours per  week. Approximately two to three (2-3) times per week, a labor foreman, Ethos Rivera  (“Rivera”), would instruct Plaintiff Jordan the night before to arrive at the job site early the next  day. Whenever Rivera required Jordan to be at job site early, he typically arrived between 4:30  am and 5:00 am.    44.  Throughout the Jordan Employment Period, Plaintiff Jordan was paid eighteen  dollars ($18.00) per hour.   45.  Plaintiff Leggett was employed by Defendants as a laborer from in or around  September 2014 through in or around February 2015 (the “Leggett Employment Period”).   Throughout the Leggett Employment Period, Plaintiff Leggett typically performed work at a  building site located at 43rd Street and 11th Avenue.   46.  Throughout the Leggett Employment Period, Plaintiff Leggett typically worked a  six (6) days per week from 6:00 am to approximately 4:30 pm, and sometimes later, for a total of  approximately fifty-four to sixty (54-60) hours per week.   48.  Plaintiff Gray was employed by Defendants as a laborer from in or around  October 2014 through in or around July 31, 2015 (the “Gray Employment Period”).    49.  Plaintiff Gray’s duties included pouring concrete, carrying construction  equipment and tools from one location to another, filling the dumpster with debris and scraps,  cleaning, and performing various tasks related to bar reassuring. Throughout the Gray  Employment Period, Plaintiff Gray often performed work on a building site located at 42nd Street  and 9th Avenue.   50.  Throughout the Gray Employment Period, Plaintiff Gray typically worked five (5)  or six (6) days a week from approximately 6:30 am or 6:45 am to between approximately 3:30  pm and 3:45 pm, and sometimes as late as 5:30 pm a total of forty-five to fifty (45-50) hours per  week.    51.  Throughout the Gray Employment Period, Plaintiff Gray was paid eighteen  dollars ($18.00) per hour.   52.  Plaintiff Parrilla was employed by Defendants as a laborer from in or around  February 2014 through in or around July 2015 (the “Parrilla Employment Period”).     53.  Plaintiff Parrilla’s duties included pouring concrete, cleaning, installing metal or  wood forms inside walls, collecting garbage and debris and placing safety rails around the  building site. Throughout the Parrilla Employment Period, Plaintiff Parrilla often performed  work at building sites located at 43rd Street and 10th Avenue and 42nd Street and 9th Avenue.   55.  Throughout the Parrilla Employment Period, Plaintiff Parrilla was paid eighteen  dollars ($18.00) per hour.   56.  Although Plaintiffs appeared to have received overtime pay at one and one-half  (1.5) times their regular rate for certain hours that they worked in excess of forty (40), there were  typically several hours “missing” from their payment each week such that they did not receive  overtime premium pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a given workweek. Upon  information and belief, Defendants deliberately decreased the number of hours on Plaintiffs’ pay  stubs such that the gross amount resulted in straight time for all hours that they worked.    57.  Upon information and belief, “Alan,” Ethos Rivera, “Gino” and “Freddy”  typically directed and supervised Plaintiffs’ work. Upon information and belief, Defendant Zollo  is in constant contact with “Alan,” Rivera, “Gino,” “Freddy” and other supervisors and foremen  to ensure that the company is operating in accordance with her standards and policies.      58.  Upon information and belief, BRF Construction Corp. (“BRF”), Hudson Meridian  Construction Group (“Hudson Meridian”) and “New Millennium” were general contractors of  certain projects on which Plaintiffs worked. Upon information and belief, BRF subcontracted  Rovini Concrete to provide labor for a hotel development site located at 577 9th Avenue, a  building located at 42nd Street and 9th Avenue, and other construction projects. Upon information  and belief Hudson Meridian subcontracted Rovini Concrete to provide labor for a building  located at 43rd Street and 11th Avenue.   60.  Upon information and belief, Defendants would typically pay undocumented  workers entirely in cash by splitting a check between as many as eight to ten (8-10) workers.   61.  Plaintiffs did not receive proper wage statements with their wage payments  including an accurate breakdown of their hours into regular and overtime hours. Defendants’  failure to provide Plaintiffs with proper wage statements was a corporate policy which applied to  all Class Members.   62.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with a wage notice at the date of their  hiring or by February 1 of each year. Defendants’ failure to provide proper wage notice and  wage statements was a corporate policy which applied to all Plaintiffs and Class Members.   63.  Plaintiffs and the Class Members were all paid pursuant to the same corporate  policies of Defendants, including failing to pay overtime premiums and failing to provide proper  wage notice and wage statements.     65.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Collective Action Members, repeat and  reallege each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and  effect as though fully set forth herein.   66.  By failing to pay overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half (1.5) times the  regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of forty (40) hours per week, Defendants have  violated and continue to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§  207(a)(1) and 215(a)(2).   67.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   68.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime caused Plaintiffs and the Collective Action  Members to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon.  Plaintiffs and the Collective Action  Members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime premium compensation,  damages for unreasonably delayed payment of wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’  fees, and costs and disbursements of the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  69.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, repeat and reallege  each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as  though fully set forth herein.   71.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime premium compensation caused Plaintiffs and  the Class Members to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon.  Plaintiffs and the Class  Members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime compensation, damages  for unreasonably delayed payment of wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and  costs and disbursements of the action pursuant to NYLL §§ 663(1) et seq.  72.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, repeat and reallege  each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as  though fully set forth herein.    73.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed and/or continue to employ Plaintiffs  and each Class Member within the meaning of the NYLL, §§ 2 and 651.   75.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants fifty dollars ($50.00) per employee for each workweek that  the violations occurred or continue to occur, or a total of twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500.00)  per employee, as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190 et seq., reasonable attorneys’ fees,  costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and declaratory relief.  76.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, repeat and reallege  each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as  though fully set forth herein.   77.  Defendants have willfully failed to supply Plaintiffs and the Class Members with  an accurate statement of wages as required by NYLL, Article 6, § 195, containing the hourly rate  or rates of pay and overtime rate or rates of pay, if applicable, and the number of overtime hours  worked.    78.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each workweek  that the violations occurred or continue to occur, up to a maximum of twenty-five hundred  dollars ($2,500) per employee, as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190 et seq., liquidated  damages as provided for by the NYLL, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, and injunctive and declaratory relief.  Defendants’ Company    FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – UNPAID OVERTIME   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – UNPAID OVERTIME   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – WAGE NOTICE VIOLATIONS   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS  