11.  Plaintiff CAYETANO brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to  FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all current and former non-exempt  employees, including, but not limited to, laborers, flagman, foreman assistants, doormen,  security, concierge, machine operators, and cleaners employed by Defendants on or after the date  that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case (“FLSA Collective Plaintiffs”).  4   12.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have been  similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and have  been subjected to Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures,  protocols, routines, and rules—all of which have culminated in a willful failure and refusal by  Defedants to pay Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs their proper (i) overtime compensation  at the rate of one and one half times the regular hourly rate for work in excess of forty (40) hours  each week, and (ii) compensation for all hours worked but for which they have not yet  compensated due to Defendants’ time-shaving practices. The claims of Plaintiff as stated herein  are essentially the same as those of other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.   13.  The claims for relief are properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in  collective action pursuant to § 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs are readily ascertainable. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this  action, their names and addresses are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided  to the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs via first class mail to the last address known to Defendants.  14.   Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  (“FRCP”) Rule 23, on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees, including but not  limited to laborers, flagman, foreman assistants, doormen, security, concierge, machine  operators, and cleaners, who were employed and unjustly compensated by Defendants,  throughout New York State, on or after the date that is six (6) years before the filing of the  Complaint in this case (the “Class”).    15.  The Class members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the  5  Class members are determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and  worked, the titles of the positions held, and rates of pay for each Class member are also  determinable from Defendants’ records. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this  action, their names and addresses are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided  by means permissible under FRCP 23.   16.  The proposed Class is so numerous that a joinder of all members is impracticable,  and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court. Although the  precise number of such persons is unknown because the facts on which the calculation of that  number rests are presently within the sole control of Defendants, there is no doubt that there are  more than forty (40) members of the Class.   17.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those claims that 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 of the Class members were subject to the same corporate  practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, including but not limited to Defendants’ (i) failing to  pay proper overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours each week;  (ii) failing to pay regular and overtime compensation for all hours worked due to a practice of  time-shaving, (iii) failing to pay spread of hours premium, (iv) failing to provide Class members  with proper wage statements in compliance with the New York Labor Law, and (v) failing to  properly provide wage and hour notices to Class members upon hiring and as required thereafter,  pursuant to the New York Labor Law. Defendants’ corporate-wide policies and practices  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  6  procedures carried out by Defendants.   18.  Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has  no interests antagonistic to the Class. Plaintiff is represented by attorneys who are experienced  and competent in both class action litigation and employment litigation, and have previously  represented plaintiffs in wage and hour cases.   19.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy—particularly in the context of the wage and hour litigation  where individual class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit  against corporate defendants. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly  situated persons to prosecute common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and  without the unnecessary duplication of efforts and expense that numerous individual actions  engender. Because losses, injuries and damages suffered by each of the individual Class  members are small in the sense pertinent to a class action analysis, 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. On the other hand, 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  7  addition, if appropriate, the Court can, and is empowered to, fashion methods to efficiently  manage this action as a class action.   20.  Defendants and other employers throughout the state violate the NYLL. Current  employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Both  current and former employees are fearful of bringing claims because doing so can harm their  employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure employment. Class actions provide  class members who are not named in the Complaint a degree of anonymity, which allows for the  vindication of their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.   21.  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 members within the  meaning of the New York law;  b) What are and were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols and  plans of Defendants regarding the types of work and labor for which  Defendants did not properly pay Plaintiff and the Class;  c) At what common rate, or rates subject to common methods of calculation,  were and are Defendants required to pay Plaintiff and the Class members for  their work;  d) Whether Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and Class  members for overtime under state and federal laws for all hours worked in  excess of forty (40) each week;  e) Whether Defendants practiced a policy of time-shaving;  8  f) Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class members spread of hours  premium for each work shift exceeding ten (10) hours in duration;   g) Whether Defendants provided to Plaintiff and Class members proper wage  and hour notice, on the date of hiring and annually thereafter, to all non- exempt employees, per the requirements of the NYLL; and  h) Whether Defendants provided to Plaintiff and Class members proper wage  statements with each payment of wages, as required by the NYLL.  22.  In or around September 2014, Plaintiff CAYETANO was hired by Defendants  and/or their predecessors, as applicable, to work as a general labor worker at various construction  sites throughout the greater New York City area. Plaintiff CAYETANO’s employment was  terminated in or around December of 2017.    23.  Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff CAYETANO routinely  worked in excess of forty (40) hours each per week. Specifically, Plaintiff CAYETANO was  scheduled to work five (5) days per workweek for eight and a half (8.5) hours per workday, from  7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., for a total of forty-two and a half (42.5) hours per workweek. Moreover,  Plaintiff CAYETANO was frequently required by Defendants to stay after 5:00 p.m., and also  after 5:30 p.m., as needed. Plaintiff CAYETANO was paid straight time at an hourly rate of  $11.00 per hour for all hours worked.    24.  Throughout his employment by Defendants, Plaintiff CAYETANO was not  compensated overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) each week.  Although Plaintiff CAYETANO regularly worked forty-two and a half (42.5) to forty-seven and  a half (47.5) hours per week, he was only ever paid $11.00 per hour for all hours worked.  9  Plaintiff has therefore not been properly compensated by Defendants at the overtime premium  rate of one and a half times his regularly hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40)  each week, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.    25.  Throughout his employment by Defendants, Plaintiff CAYETANO was not  compensated for all his hours worked. Plaintiff CAYETANO was automatically deducted a  thirty (30) minute meal break even though he never took such a break. Due to Defendants’ time- shaving policy, Plaintiff CAYETANO did not receive his proper regular and overtime  compensation for his off-the-clock hours of work.    26.  Whenever Plaintiff was required by Defendants to continue working up until and  through 5:30 p.m., Plaintiff CAYETANO worked over ten (10) or more hours on those days, as  his work shift began at 7:30 a.m. each day. However, Plaintiff and Class members were never  paid a spread of hours premium as required under the NYLL.    27.  Based on Plaintiff CAYETANO’s observations and conversations with other  employees, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members similarly suffered from Defendant’s  policy of (i) time-shaving, (ii) failing to pay employees proper overtime compensation for all  hours worked in excess of forty (40) each week, and (iii) failing to pay a spread of hours  premium.    28.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half) or the New York State overtime rate  (of time and one-half) to Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class for all hours worked  in excess of forty (40) each week.  10   29.  Defendants knowingly and willingly failed to pay Plaintiff, FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs and the Class regular and overtime wages for all hours worked due Defendants’ time-  shaving practices.    30.  Defendants knowingly and willfully made illegal meal break deductions from  Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members’ paychecks.    31.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying spread-of-hours premium to Plaintiff and Class members, in violation of the NYLL.   32.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  providing proper wage statements, as required under the NYLL.    33.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  providing proper wage notices to employees, at the beginning of employment and at dates of all  wage changes thereafter, pursuant to the requirements of the NYLL.   34.  Plaintiff retained Lee Litigation Group, PLLC to represent Plaintiff, FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs and Class members in this litigation and has agreed to pay the firm a  reasonable fee for its services.  35.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 34 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   36.  At all relevant times, Defendants were and continue to be employers engaged in  interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the  11  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a). Further, Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are  covered individuals within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   37.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs within the meaning of the FLSA.   38.  At all relevant times, Corporate Defendant QUALITY FACILITY SOLUTIONS  CORP had gross annual revenues in excess of $500,000.   39.  At all relevant times, the Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay  overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and one-half to Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs for their hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.   40.  Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for all  hours worked due to time-shaving.   41.  Records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs, and the actual compensation paid to Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs should be in the possession and custody of Defendants. Plaintiff intends to obtain these  records by appropriate discovery proceedings to be taken promptly in this case and, if necessary,  will then seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the precise amount due.   42.  Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA.   43.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful disregard of the FLSA,  Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated (i.e., double) damages pursuant  to the FLSA.  12   44.  Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and  FLSA Collective Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount not presently ascertainable of unpaid  overtime, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages.   45.  Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their  reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  46.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 45 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   47.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members were employed by Defendants  within the meaning of the NYLL, §§ 2 and 651.     48.  Defendants willfully violated the rights of Plaintiff and Class members by failing  to pay Plaintiff and Class members the proper overtime compensation at rates not less than one  and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) hours each  workweek.    49.  Defendants willfully violated the rights of Plaintiff and Class members, by  practicing a policy of time-shaving, in violation of the NYLL.    50.  Defendants willfully violated the rights of Plaintiff and Class members by failing  to pay spread-of-hours premium for each workday that exceeded ten (10) hours in length, in  violation of the NYLL.   51.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  providing proper wage statements to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees, as required by  13  the NYLL. Defendants are required to provide accurate and proper information on wage  statements issued to employees in accordance with the NYLL.    52.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  providing Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with proper wage notices, at date of hiring  and at dates of all wage changes thereafter, in violation of the NYLL.     53.  Due to the Defendants’ NYLL violations, Plaintiff and Class members are entitled  to recover from Defendants their unpaid wages, including overtime, unpaid spread-of-hours  premium, reasonable attorneys’ fees, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and costs and  disbursements of the action, pursuant to the NYLL.    VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW  