 (Failure to pay wages)  NY Lab. Law §191   (Failure to pay overtime)   (NY STATE)    (Failure to pay minimum wages)   (NY STATE)    (Failure to pay overtime)   (Federal- 29 USC 201 et. seq.)    (Failure to provide wage notices)   (NY Lab. Law §198(1-b) & NY Lab. Law §198(1-d))    (Unlawful Retaliation)  (NY STATE)  NY Lab. Law §215    (Unlawful Retaliation)   (Federal- 29 USC §215)    1. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and reincorporates all allegations as though fully set forth herein..   1. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and reincorporates all allegations as though fully set forth herein.   10. Corporate Defendant is involved in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of  the FLSA.   10. The Defendants unlawfully terminated Plaintiff for complaining about the Defendants  unlawful pay practices as set forth in this Complaint.    11. Corporate Defendant’s annual revenues exceed $500,000 for the year 2020.   11. By the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to recover lost wages, liquidated damages,  attorney fees, costs, and pre-judgement and post-judgement interest from the Defendants.   12. Corporate Defendant’s annual revenues exceed $500,000 for the year 2019.   12. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and reincorporates all allegations as though fully set forth herein.   13. The provisions of 29 U.S.C. §215 apply to the Defendants and protect the Plaintiff.     13. On information and belief, Corporate Defendant regularly purchases goods from locations  outside the State of New York and utilizes such products within the State of New York.    14. The business activities of the Corporate Defendant are related and performed through  unified operation or common control for a common business purpose.   14. Under 29 U.S.C. §215, the Defendants were prohibited from unlawfully retaliating against  Plaintiff for complaining about the Defendants violations of the New York Labor Law.    15. The Defendants unlawfully terminated Plaintiff for complaining about the Defendants  unlawful pay practices as set forth in this Complaint.    15. The Corporate Defendant engages in a combination of different activities in the course of its  business operation, including but not limited to: (1) advertising, (2) bookkeeping, (3)  managing employees, (4) selling, and (5) purchasing supplies (jointly as the “Related  Activities”).   16. By the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to recover lost wages, liquidated damages,  attorney fees, costs, and pre-judgement and post-judgement interest from the Defendants.  16. The Corporate Defendant has an organizational structure whereby there is an individual, or  group of individuals, who control the Related Activities.    17. Corporate Defendant failed to keep accurate and sufficient payroll and time records, as  required by law.    17. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and reincorporates all allegations as though fully set forth herein.   18. During the Relevant Time Period, Corporate Defendant did not record the Plaintiff’s exact  daily work start time and exact daily work end time.    18. The overtime wage provisions set forth in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and the  supporting federal regulations, apply to Defendants and protect the Plaintiff.   19. Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages to which Plaintiff was entitled under  the FLSA and the supporting Federal Regulations.   19. Corporate Defendant did not maintain sufficient payroll and time records to determine the  weekly pay and hours worked by the Plaintiff.   2. Under the Wage Theft Prevention Act, New York Labor Law, §195, Defendants willfully  failed to furnish Plaintiff with a required notice containing the following information:  i. the rates or rates of pay and basis thereof,  ii. whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission or other  allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage, including tip, meal, or  lodging allowances;   iii. the regular pay designated by the employer per NYLL §191;  iv. the name of the employer;  v. Any “doing business as” names used by the employer;  vi. The physical address of the employer’s main office or principal place of business,  and a mailing address, if different;  vii. The telephone number of the employer   2. The minimum wage provisions of Article 19 of the NYLL and its supporting regulations  apply to Defendant and protect the Plaintiff.   20. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Corporate Defendant during the Relevant Time Period.    21. Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as described in this Complaint, has been willful and  intentional. Defendants were aware or should have been aware that the practices  described in this Complaint are unlawful. Defendant have not made a good faith effort  to comply with the FLSA with respect to the compensation of Plaintiff.   21. The Plaintiff was not an independent contractor while performing services for Corporate  Defendant during the Relevant Time Period.    22. Because Defendants’ violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year statute of  limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.  22. Corporate Defendant provided all of the equipment and material for the Plaintiff to perform  his job.    23. Corporate Defendant treated the Plaintiff as a “W-2” wage earner.    23. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and reincorporates all allegations as though fully set forth herein..   24. The overtime wage provisions of Article 19 of the NYLL and its supporting regulations  apply to Defendant and protect the Plaintiff.   25. Corporate Defendant assigned the Plaintiff the specific job duties to which he had to  perform.   25. Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages to which Plaintiff was entitled under  the NYLL and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations.   26. The Plaintiff was not free to hire other employees to work in his place to perform his job  duties for Corporate Defendant.    26. By the Defendants’ knowing or intentional failure to pay Plaintiff overtime wages for hours  worked over 40 hours per workweek, they have willfully violated NYLL Art. 19, §§ 650 et  seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations.   27. Plaintiff never had any ownership interest in Corporate Defendant and never invested capital  into Corporate Defendant.   27. Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff is entitled to recover unpaid overtime  wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and pre- judgment and post-judgment interest from the Defendants.  3. Defendants willfully failed to furnish Plaintiff with an accurate statement of wages as  required by NYLL §195(3), containing the dates of work covered by that payment of wages;  name of the employee; name of the employer; address and phone number of employer; rate  or rates of pay and basis thereof; whether paid by hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece,  commission, or other; gross wages; hour rate or rates of pay, and overtime rates of pay; the  number of hours worked, including overtime hours; deductions, allowances, and net wages.    3. Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff call in wages to which Plaintiff was entitled under the  NYLL and 12 NYCRR §142-2.3 of the supporting New York State Department of Labor  Regulations.   4. Due to Defendants’ violation of NYLL §195(1), Plaintiff is entitled to recover from  Defendants liquidated damages of $50 per each workday that the violation occurred, up to a  maximum of $5,000, reasonable attorney fees, and costs and disbursements of this action,  pursuant to NYLL § 198(1-b).   48. Plaintiff bring each cause of action set forth herein as a collective action on behalf of the  following class of potential opt-in litigants:  All current and former warehouse employees who were employed by united Parcel  Service in any workweek in the past three years (“FLSA Class”).   49. Plaintiff reserves the right to redefine the FLSA Class prior to class certification and  thereafter, as necessary.    5. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff an accurate statement with each payment of wages that  sets forth Plaintiff’s hours worked, rates of pay, gross wages, credits claimed (for tips, meals,  and lodging) if any, deductions and net wages.   5. Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff is entitled to recover unpaid call in pay  wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and pre- judgment and post-judgment interest from the Defendants.  50. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit under 29 U.S.C §216(b) as a collective action on behalf of the  FLSA Class defined above.    51. Plaintiff desires to pursue Plaintiff’s FLSA claims on behalf of any individuals who opt-in to  this action under 29 U.S.C. §216(b).    53. Specifically, the Defendants typically paid Plaintiff and the FLSA Class by not paying for  waiting time pay when the employees were required to enter into the facility and programing  the time clock to begin tracking work hours after the employees already started working. By  these acts, each employee was underpaid by approximately 45 minutes every day, which  impacted overtime rates.     54. The Similarly-Situated employees are known to the Defendants, are readily identifiable, and  may be located through the Defendants’ records and the records of any payroll company  that the Defendant uses. The Defendants employ FLSA Class Members in the State of New  York. These similarly-situated employees may be readily notified of this action through  direct U.S mail and/or other appropriate means, and allowed to opt into it pursuant to 29  U.S.C. §216(b), for the collective adjudication of their claims for overtime compensation,  liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.   55. Plaintiffs bring each cause of action of this lawsuit as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,  on behalf of themselves and the following class:  All current and former warehouse employees who were employed by united Parcel  Service in any workweek in the past three years (the “New York Class”).   56. Plaintiff reserves the right to redefine the New York Class prior to class certification and  thereafter, as necessary   57. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of himself and  the New York Class defined above.    58. On information and belief, the members of the New York Class are so numerous that  joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are more than 40  members of the New York Class.    59. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the New York Class  because there is no conflict between the claims of Plaintiffs and those of the New York  Class, and Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the New York Class. Plaintiff’s  counsel is competent and experienced in representing multi-plaintiff wage and hour claims  such as this one.    60. There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed New York Class, which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members, including, without  limitation: whether the Defendants have violated and continue to violate the laws of New  York through its policy or practice of not paying its employees for all hours worked.    62. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because questions of law and  fact common to the New York Class predominate over any questions affecting only  individual Class Members.   63. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient adjudication of  the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit many similarly situated persons to  prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the  duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would entail. No  difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action that would  preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy. The New York Class is readily identifiable from  the Defendants’ own employment records. Prosecution of separate actions by individual  members of the New York Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying  adjudications with respect to individual Class members that would establish incompatible  standards of conduct for the Defendants.     64. A class action is superior to other available methods for adjudication of this controversy  because joinder of all members is impractical. Further, the amounts at stake for many of the  New York Class members, while substantial, are not great enough to enable them to  maintain separate suits against the Defendant.  Each individual class member might not have  substantial enough damages to justify private counsel bringing an individual claim on behalf  of such individual class member. Accordingly, this is the type of case and the type of  circumstances for which Rule 23 was enacted.   65. Without a class action, the Defendant will retain the benefit of its wrongdoing, which will  result in further damages to the Plaintiff and the New York Class. Plaintiff envisions no  difficulty in the management of this action as a class action  66. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and reincorporates all allegations as though fully set forth herein.   67. Under NY Lab. Law §191, an employer is required to pay an employee within one week of  the services performed by the employee.    68. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff his wages as required by NYLL §191 by not paying wages  within the statutory time-period.    7. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and reincorporates all allegations as though fully set forth herein.   7. Corporate Defendant is an “employer” under the FLSA.   8. Corporate Defendant is an “employer” under the NYLL.   8. The provisions of NY Lab. Law §215 apply to the Defendants and protect the Plaintiff.     9. During any period of time whatsoever between November 4, 2019, through January18, 2020,  Corporate Defendant had the ability to perform one or more of the following actions: (1)  hire the Plaintiff, (2) terminate the employment of the Plaintiff, (3) set the Plaintiff’s wage  rate, (4) maintain payroll records concerning the Plaintiff, or (5) institute work rules for the  Plaintiff.   9. Under NY Lab. Law §215, the Defendants were prohibited from unlawfully retaliating  against Plaintiff for complaining about the Defendants violations of the New York Labor  Law.    Fair Labor Standards Collective Class Definition   New York State Class Definition  