(Overtime under the FLSA)   (Overtime under the NYLL)   (Wage Payment Statements under the NYLL)   20.  Defendant RCI Plumbing Corp. has been in operation since 2002 and currently  employs fifty (50) or more workers consisting of plumbers, mechanics and laborers.    Plaintiff Alvaro Dector   21.  Plaintiff Dector worked for Defendants as a plumber and junior mechanic from on  or about June 24, 2016 through January 24, 2017.    22.  As a plumber and junior mechanic, Plaintiff Dector’s duties, included, without  limitation, installing drains, pipes and performing tapwork.     23.  Throughout his employment, Plaintiff Dector worked 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.,  Monday through Saturday, with a half hour lunch break each workday, for an approximate total of  forty-eight (48) hours per week.    24.  Plaintiff Dector was paid $22.00 per hour during his employment.    25.  Irrespective of the number of hours he worked per week, Plaintiff Dector was paid  his straight hourly rate and was not paid one and one half times his regular hourly rate for hours  worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.    26.  Plaintiff Dector was paid for his first forty (40) hours worked by check and was  paid at his regular rate of pay for his overtime hours by cash.   Plaintiff Wilson Romero   27.  Plaintiff Romero worked for Defendants as a plumber and junior mechanic from on  or about February 2, 2016 through November 27, 2016.    29.  From on or about February 3, 2016 through April 2016, Plaintiff Romero worked  7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on Saturday, with a half  hour lunch break each workday, for an approximate total of sixty-four and one half (64.5) hours  per week.   30.  From February 2016 through April 2016, Plaintiff Romero was paid $15.00 per  hour.    31.  From in or around May 2016 through November 27, 2016, Plaintiff Romero worked  7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with a half hour lunch break each workday, for  an approximate total of forty-eight (48) hours per week.   32.  From in or around May 2016 through November 27, 2016, Plaintiff Romero was  paid $17.00 per hour.    33.  Irrespective of the number of hours he worked per week, Plaintiff Romero was paid  his straight hourly rate and was not paid one and one half times his regular hourly rate for hours  worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.    34.  Plaintiff Romero was paid for his first forty (40) hours worked by check and was  paid at his regular rate of pay for his overtime hours by cash.   Violations   35.  At all relevant times, Defendant Christopher Chierchio was responsible for hiring  and firing, supervising, creating work schedules, determining rates of pay and assigning work tasks  for the workers and Plaintiffs at RCI Plumbing Corp.    37.  At all relevant times, each of the Defendants maintained control, oversight and  authority over Plaintiffs in the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment and payment of  wages, and were therefore Plaintiffs’ employer as defined under the FLSA and NYLL.    38.  The work performed by Plaintiffs was non-exempt work, as that term is used and  defined in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) regulations promulgated under the FLSA and  45.  Employees are "similarly situated" for purposes of FLSA collective wage suits if  they are subject to a common policy, plan, or design.   46.  Plaintiffs bring the FLSA claims on behalf of themselves and others similarly  situated, namely employees of Defendants who worked as plumbers, mechanics and laborers from  the period of January 1, 2014 to the date of final judgment in this matter, who were not paid their  full overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, and who do not opt  into this action (hereinafter referred to as the “RCI Collective”).   47.  Upon information and belief, the RCI Collective consists of approximately two  hundred (200) similarly situated individuals who have not been paid their full overtime wages and  who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised notice of the lawsuit and the  opportunity to join the lawsuit.    48.  Defendants have failed to pay all overtime wages owed to employees other than  those in the RCI Collective, and Plaintiffs reserve the right to broaden the definition of the  collective group and/or add subgroups to this claim as additional members are discovered.    49.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly compensate  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.    50.  Those similarly situated potential collective members are known to Defendants, are  readily identifiable, and can be located through Defendants’ records.  51.   Plaintiffs bring this case a representative of a class of all other persons similarly  situated.    53.  Upon information and belief, the RCI Class includes over two hundred (200)  similarly situated individuals who have not been paid overtime wages, have not received wage  payment statements, and who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised notice of the  lawsuit and the opportunity to join the lawsuit.   54.  The RCI Class is so numerous as to make it impracticable to join all members of  the class as Plaintiffs.   55.  There are questions of law and fact common to all members of the RCI Class and  those questions predominate over any question affecting only individual class members.  Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members, in that Defendants’  acts and omissions constitute a violation of the wage laws of the State of New York.   57.  Plaintiffs’ wage and hour claims and Defendants’ anticipated affirmative defenses  thereto are typical of the claims of all class members and of Defendants’ anticipated affirmative  defenses thereto.   58.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all class members in the  prosecution of this action and in the administration of all matters relating to the claims of the class.  Plaintiffs are similarly situated with, and have suffered similar injuries as, the members of the class  they seek to represent.    59.  Plaintiffs have retained counsel capable of handling class action suits. Neither  Plaintiffs nor their counsel have an interest which is in conflict with the class or which might cause  them not to vigorously pursue this action.   60.  Class certification is appropriate here because the prosecution of separate actions  by class members could result in either inconsistent adjudications establishing incompatible pay  practices, or could as a practical matter dispose of the legal claims of class members not parties to  such separate adjudications.   61.  Class certification is appropriate here because questions of law or fact common to  members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and  because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication  of the controversy.  63.  As part of their ongoing business practice, Defendants have intentionally, willfully  and repeatedly harmed Plaintiffs and the RCI Class by engaging in a pattern, practice and/or policy  of violating the NYLL.    64.  Defendants have substantially benefitted and profited from the work that Plaintiffs  and the RCI Class have performed.    65.  Defendants failed to keep any records of the hours worked by the Plaintiffs and the  RCI Class.    66.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct, policies and practices have been widespread,  repeated, and consistent.    67.  Defendants’ conduct, policies, and practices as described herein are ongoing and  continuing.    68.  Defendants’ conduct, policies and practices have been intentional, willful, and in  bad faith, and has caused significant damages to the Plaintiffs and the RCI Class.  69.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs  with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.    70.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the RCI Collective were employees of the  Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(e) and Defendants employed Plaintiffs within  the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).    72.  At all relevant times, Defendants annual volume of business exceeds $500,000.00  and thus subjects Defendants to the requirements of the FLSA.    73.  As the Defendants shared control of the services of the Plaintiffs and the RCI  Collective, Defendants are a single “employer” as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act.    74.  At all relevant times, Defendants were subject to the overtime wage requirements  set forth in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.   75.  Defendants expected Plaintiffs and the RCI Collective to work more than forty (40)  hours a week, and Plaintiffs and the RCI Collective regularly worked more than forty (40) hours a  week throughout their employment.   76.  At no time have the Defendants paid Plaintiffs and the RCI Collective a rate of one  and one half times their hourly rate of pay for all of the hours they worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per week.    77.  Defendants willfully, knowingly and intentionally did not compensate Plaintiffs  and the RCI Collective for overtime at a rate of one and one half times their hourly rate of pay for  all of the hours they worked in excess of forty (40) hours a week.   78.  As a result of Defendants’ violations of the law and failures to pay Plaintiffs and  the RCI Collective required overtime wages, Plaintiffs and the RCI Collective have been damaged  and are entitled to recover from Defendants all wages due, along with all reasonable attorneys’  fees, interest, and costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   80.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs  with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.    81.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the RCI Class were employees and Defendants  were their employers within the meaning of NYLL §§ 190, 651 and 652.    82.  At all relevant times, Defendants were subject to the overtime wage requirements  set forth in Article 19 of the NYLL.    83.  Pursuant to NYLL § 650 et seq. and 12 NYCRR 142-2.2, non-exempt employees  are required to be paid one and one-half times the employees' regular rate of pay for any hours in  excess of forty (40) worked in any workweek.   84.  Defendants expected Plaintiffs and the RCI Class to work more than forty (40)  hours a week, and Plaintiffs and the RCI Class regularly worked more than forty (40) hours a week  throughout their employment.   85.  At no time have the Defendants paid Plaintiffs and the RCI Class a rate of one and  one-half times their hourly rate of pay for all of the hours they worked in excess of forty (40) hours  per week.    86.  Defendants willfully, knowingly and intentionally did not compensate Plaintiffs  and the RCI Class for overtime at a rate of one and one half times their hourly rate of pay for all  of the hours they worked in excess of forty (40) hours a week.   88.  As Defendants did not have a good faith basis to believe that their failure to pay  overtime wages to Plaintiffs and the RCI Class was in compliance with the law, Plaintiffs and the  RCI Class are entitled to additional liquidated damages equal to one hundred percent of the total  amount of wages due, pursuant to NYLL§ 198.  89.  Plaintiffs repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the preceding  paragraphs with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.    90.  At all relevant times, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the RCI Class with  the proper statements with every payment of wages, as required by NYLL § 195(1).  