14.  Plaintiff 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 waiters, busboys, runners, servers, food preparers, dishwashers, bartenders and  bar-backs employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the  Complaint (“FLSA Collective Plaintiffs”).   15.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and  have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions,  and are and have been subjected to Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,  procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay  them overtime premium at one and one half times their straight time base hourly rates for each  hour worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek due to a policy of time shaving. Plaintiff’s  claims stated herein are essentially the same as those of the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.    17.  Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  (“F.R.C.P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees, including but  not limited to waiters, busboys, runners, servers, food preparers, dishwashers, bartenders,  delivery persons and bar-backs employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years  before the filing of the Complaint (the “Class Period”).    18.  All said persons, including Plaintiff, are referred to herein as the “Class.” The  Class members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the Class members are  determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and worked, the position held,  and rates of pay for each Class member may also be 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 F.R.C.P. 23.   20.  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 the Class members were subject to the same corporate  practices of Defendants, including (i) failing to pay overtime premium due to a policy of time  shaving, (ii) failing to provide wage statements in compliance with the New York Labor Law,  and (iii) failing to provide wage and hour notices 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. Plaintiffs and other Class members sustained similar losses,  injuries and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices and procedures. With  respect to the Tipped Subclass, Defendants unlawfully claimed a tip credit without satisfying all  statutory requirements for taking a tip credit.   21.  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.   23.  Defendants and other employers throughout the state violate the New York Labor  Law. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect  retaliation. 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.   25.  In or around January 2008, Plaintiff JUSTO CANO was hired by Defendants to  work as a delivery worker for Defendant’s Pizzeria located at 221 West 38th Street, New York,  NY 10018. Plaintiff’s employment by Defendants terminated in January 2019.   26.  During his employment by Defendants, Plaintiff worked over forty (40) hours per  week.   27.  Specifically, Plaintiff worked four (4) days per week for ten (10) hours per day,  from 11:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., and one (1) day per week for three (3) hours, from 11:00 A.M. to  2:00 P.M., for a total of forty-three (43) hours per week.   29.  From 2008 through 2016, Plaintiff CANO received an hourly rate of $5.00. From  January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, Plaintiff CANO received an hourly rate of $7.50. From  January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, Plaintiff CANO received an hourly rate of $8.65. From  January 1, 2019 to January 31, 2019, Plaintiff CANO received an hourly rate of $10.00. Other  tipped employees received similar pay rates.   30.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff worked a total of more than forty (40) hours each  workweek. However, Defendants never paid him overtime premium for those hours he worked  in excess of forty (40) each workweek, due to a policy of time shaving.  Similarly, FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were not paid their overtime premium for hours that  they worked in excess of forty (40) each workweek.   31.  During Plaintiff’s employment by Defendants, Defendants compensated Plaintiff  at a “tip credit” minimum wage, which was at all relevant times below the New York State  minimum wages. Similarly, Tipped Subclass members were paid at sub-minimum wage “tip  credit” base hourly rates. However, because Defendants failed to fulfill all requirements for a tip  credit, all tip credits taken were invalid.   32.  Plaintiff and Tipped Subclass members did not receive notice that Defendants  were claiming a tip credit on tipped employees’ compensation.  They were never informed that  Defendants were claiming a tip credit allowance. They also never received any notice on their  wage statements of the amount of tip credit allowance taken for each payment period, or the  hourly rate of tip credit deduction.   34.  Defendants never provided Plaintiff with wage notices, as required by the NYLL.  Similarly, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were never provided with any wage  notices.   35.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with proper wage statements at all relevant  times. Class members also received defective wage statements that did not comply with the  39.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 38 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   40.  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  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).   41.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs within the meaning of the FLSA.   42.   At all relevant times, SEBASTIAN’S PIZZERIA INC. had gross annual revenues  in excess of $500,000.00.   43.  At all relevant times, the Defendants had a policy and practice of failing to pay  the statutory minimum wage to Plaintiff and Tipped Subclass members for all hours worked. As  factually described above, Defendants were not entitled to claim any tip credits under the FLSA.    44.  At all relevant times, Defendants engaged in 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) hours per workweek, due to a  policy of time shaving.   46.  Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA.   47.  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.   48.  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  minimum wages, unpaid overtime premium, and an equal amount as liquidated damages.   49.  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).  50.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 49 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   51.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members were employed by the  Defendants within the meaning of the New York Labor Law, §§2 and 651.     52.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff and Class members’ rights by failing to pay  them minimum wages in the lawful amount for hours worked.  As  factually described above,  Defendants were not entitled to claim any tip credits under NYLL with respect to the Tipped  Subclass.     54.  Defendants failed to properly notify employees of their hourly pay rate and  overtime rate, in direct violation of the New York Labor Law.   55.  Defendants failed to provide a proper wage and hour notice, at the date of hiring  and annually, to all non-exempt employees per requirements of the New York Labor Law.   56.  Defendants failed to provide proper wage statements with every payment as  required by New York Lab. Law § 195(3).   57.  Due to the Defendants’ New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiff and Class  members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid minimum wages, compensation  for unpaid off-the-clock hours worked including overtime hours, damages for unreasonably  delayed payments, reasonable attorneys’ fees, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and costs  and disbursements of the action.    VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND  CLASS MEMBERS  