 [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]   20.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.   22.  From on or about February 28, 2017 to February 2, 2018, Plaintiff was hired by  Defendants to work as a busboy, cleaning person, and stock up person for Defendants’ restaurant  and beer garden located at 4892 Broadway, New York, NY 10034.   23.   During his employment, Plaintiff often worked (8) to (12) hours per day and over  forty (40) hours per week. From February 28, 2017 to September 10, 2017, Plaintiff worked six  days a week with Thursdays off. During this period Plaintiff was paid in cash, and his daily  schedule ran as follows; Mondays from 2:00pm to 4:00am; Tuesdays from 6:00pm to 2:00am;  Wednesdays from 4:00pm to 12:00am; Fridays from 6:00pm to 5:00am; Saturdays from 6:00pm  to 5:00am; and Sundays from 2:00pm to 1:00am. Therefore, Plaintiff averaged a total of sixty-one  (61) hours per week during this period.      24.  From on or about September 11, 2017, Defendants began to pay by check and  reduced Plaintiff’s weekly hours to an average of forty-five (45) hours per week. During this  period, Plaintiff worked a total of five days a week with two varied days off. Plaintiff’s work  schedule varied throughout the week, however, Plaintiff did not work more than nine (9) hours per  workday. Throughout Plaintiff’s tenure with Defendants, Plaintiff did not receive a break.       25.  At the start of his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff received an hourly rate of  $7.50. On January 1, 2018, Defendants raised Plaintiff’s hourly rate to $8.65, which remained the  same for the rest of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants.     26.  Defendants did not implement any means (time punch card, written time sheets,  computer time logs etc.) to track the number of hours Plaintiff actually worked.   28.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for overtime compensation according to  state and federal laws.   29.  Plaintiff was not compensated for New York’s “spread of hours” premium for shifts  that lasted longer than ten (10) hours.    30.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a wage notices at the time of his hiring.    31.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.    32.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of overtime and the “spread of hours”  premium would economically injure Plaintiff and the Class Members by their violation of federal  and state laws.    33.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was not exempt under federal and state  laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime.     34.  Plaintiff and the New York Class Members’ workdays frequently lasted longer than  10 hours.     35.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other Class members’ New York’s “spread of  hours” premium for every day in which they worked over 10 hours.     36.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and other Class members with written notices  about the terms and conditions of their employment upon hire in relation to their rate of pay, regular  pay cycle and rate of overtime pay. These notices were similarly not provided upon Plaintiff’s and  other Class members’ pay increase(s).    38.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and  one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in violation of the FLSA  and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor  Regulations.    39.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying the New York State “spread of hours” premium to Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees.   40.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other and former non- exempt employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants at their restaurant and beer  garden for up to the last three (3) years, through entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective  Action Period”) and whom failed to receive spread-of-hours pay, and overtime compensation for  all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week (the “Collective Action Members”), and  have been subject to the same common decision, policy, and plan to not provide required wage  notices at the time of hiring, in contravention to federal and state labor laws.    42.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action  Members, and have retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the field of employment  law and class action litigation. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with those  members of this collective action.   43.  This action should be certified as a collective action because the prosecution of  separate actions by individual members of the collective action would risk creating either  inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members of this class that would as  a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not party to the adjudication,  or subsequently impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.    44.  A collective action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore,  inasmuch as the damages suffered by individual Collective Action Members may be relatively  small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it virtually impossible for the  members of the collective action to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them. There  will be no difficulty in the management of this action as collective action.    46.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.    47.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by  Defendants’ unlawful conduct.   48.  Plaintiff brings his NYLL claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.  R. C. P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt persons employed by Defendants at their restaurant  and beer garden location doing business as Inwood Bar And Grill on or after the date that is six  years before the filing of the Complaint in this case as defined herein (the “Class Period”).    50.  The proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,  and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parities and the Court. Although the  precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts on which the calculation of the number  is presently within the sole control of the Defendants, upon information and belief, there are more  than ten (10) members of the class.    51.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those claims which could be alleged by any member  of the  Class,  and  the  relief  sought  is  typical  of  the  relief  that  would  be  sought  by  each  member  of  the  Class  in  separate  actions.  All the Class members were subject to the same  corporate practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, of failing to pay overtime compensation.  Defendants’ corporation wide policies and practices, including  but  not  limited  to  their  failure   to provide a wage notice at the time of hiring, affected all Class members similarly, and Defendants  benefited from the same type of unfair and/ or wrongful acts as to each Class member. Plaintiff  and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same  unlawful policies, practices and procedures.    53.  A  class  action  is  superior  to  other  available  methods  for  the  fair  and  efficient  adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where  individual Class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute corporate   defendant.  Class  action  treatment  will  permit  a  large  number  of  similarly situated persons to  prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently,  and  without  the   unnecessary  duplication  of  efforts and expenses that numerous individual actions engender. The  losses, injuries, and damages suffered by each of the individual Class members are small in the  sense pertinent to a class action analysis, thus the expenses and burden of individual litigation  would make it extremely difficult or impossible for the individual Class members to redress the  wrongs done to them.  Further, important public interests will be served by addressing the matter  as a class action.  The  adjudication  of  individual  litigation  claims would result in a great  expenditure  of  Court  and  public  resources;  however,  treating  the  claims  as  a  class action  would result in a significant saving of these costs.  The prosecution of separate actions by  individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications  with respect to the individual members of the Class, establishing incompatible standards of  conduct for Defendants and resulting in the impairment of class  members’  rights  and  the   disposition  of  their  interests  through  actions  to  which they were not parties.  The issues in this  action can be decided by means of common, class-wide proof.  In  addition,  if  appropriate,  the   Court  can,  and  is  empowered  to, fashion methods to efficiently manage this action as a class  action.     55.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over  any questions affecting only individual class members, including:    a. Whether Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Class within the meaning of the New  York law;   b. Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to minimum wages under the New  York Labor Law;    c. Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to overtime under the New York Labor  Law;    d. Whether Defendants maintained a policy, pattern and/or practice of failing to pay  Plaintiff and  the  Rule  23  Class  spread-of-hours  pay  as  required  by  the NYLL;   e. Whether the Defendants provided wage notices at the time of hiring to Plaintiff and class  members as required by the NYLL;  f. At what common rate, or rates subject to common method of calculation were and are  the Defendants required to pay the Class members for their work  57.  At all relevant times, upon information and belief, Defendants have been, and  continue to  be,  “employers”  engaged  in  interstate  “commerce”  and/or  in  the  production  of  “goods”  for  “commerce,”  within  the  meaning  of  the  FLSA,  29  U.S.C.  §§206(a) and §§207(a).  Further, Plaintiff is covered within the meaning of FLSA, U.S.C. §§206(a) and 207(a).    58.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed “employees” including Plaintiff, within  the meaning of FLSA.    59.  Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants have had gross  revenues in excess of $500,000.    60.  The FLSA provides that any employer engaged in commerce shall pay employees  the applicable minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).    61.  At  all  relevant  times,  Defendants  had  a  policy  and  practice  of  refusing  to   pay  the statutory minimum wage to Plaintiff, and the collective action members, for some or all  of the hours they worked.    62.  The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C.  §206 shall  be  liable  to  the  employees  affected  in  the  amount  of  their  unpaid  minimum  compensation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.    64.  Plaintiff  re-alleges  and  incorporates  by  reference  all  preceding  paragraphs  as   though fully set forth herein.    65.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the meaning of  New York Labor Law §§2 and 651.    66.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay the minimum wage shall be liable, in addition to the amount of any underpayments, for  liquidated damages equal to the total of such under-payments found to be due the employee.    67.  Defendants knowingly and willfully violated Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ rights  by failing to pay them minimum wages in the lawful amount for hours worked.   68.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    70.  The  FLSA  provides  that  any  employer  who  violates  the  provisions  of  29   U.S.C. §207 shall be liable to the employees affected in the amount of their unpaid overtime  compensation,  and  in  an  additional  equal  amount  as  liquidated  damages.  29 USC §216(b).    71.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective their overtime pay  violated the FLSA.    72.  At all relevant times, Defendants had, and continue to have, a policy of practice of  refusing  to  pay  overtime  compensation  at  the  statutory  rate  of  time  and  a  half  to Plaintiff  and Collective Action Members for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours  per  workweek,   which  violated  and  continues  to  violate  the  FLSA,  29  U.S.C. §§201, et seq., including 29  U.S.C. §§207(a)(1) and 215(a).    73.  The FLSA and supporting regulations required employers to notify employees of  employment law requires employers to notify employment law requirements. 29 C.F.R. §516.4.    74.  Defendants  willfully  failed  to  notify  Plaintiff and  FLSA  Collective  of  the  requirements  of  the  employment  laws  in  order  to  facilitate  their  exploitation  of Plaintiff’s  and FLSA Collectives’ labor.    76.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    77.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay proper overtime compensation shall be liable, in addition to the amount of any underpayments,  for liquidated damages equal to the total of such under-payments found to be due the employee.    78.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class their overtime pay  violated the NYLL.    79.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class was not in good faith.   80.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    81.  The NYLL requires employers to pay an extra hour’s pay for every day that an  employee works an interval in excess of ten hours pursuant to NYLL §§190, et seq., and §§650,  et seq., and New York State Department of Labor regulations §146-1.6.    82.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class spread-of-hours pay was not  in good faith.   84.  The NYLL and supporting regulations require employers to provide written notice  of the rate or rates of pay and the basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary,  piece, commission, or other; allowances, if any, claimed as a part of minimum wage, including  tip, meal, or lodging allowances; the regular pay day designated by the employer; the name of the  employer; any “doing business as” names used by the employer; the physical address of  employer’s main office or principal place of business, and a mailing address if different; the  telephone number of the employer.  NYLL §195-1(a).   85.  Defendants intentionally failed to provide notice to employees in violation of  New York Labor Law § 195, which requires all employers to provide written notice in the  employee’s primary language about the terms and conditions of employment related to rate of pay,  regular pay cycle and rate of overtime on his or her first day of employment.   86.  Defendants not only did not provide notice to each employee at Time of Hire, but  failed to provide notice to each Plaintiff even after the fact.   87.  Due to Defendants’ violations of New York Labor Law, Plaintiff is entitled to  recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, $50 for each workday that the violation occurred  or continued to occur, up to $5,000, together with costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to New York  Labor Law. N.Y. Lab. Law §198(1-b).  88.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   90.  Defendants have failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the New York  Labor Law with respect to compensation of each Plaintiff, and did not provide the paystub on or  after each Plaintiff’s payday.   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Time of Hire Wage Notice Requirement]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Overtime Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—New York Pay Stub Requirement]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Spread of Time Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class]  