27.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207, Plaintiff Weathersby seeks to prosecute her FLSA  claims as collective actions on behalf of herself and others who worked as Bartenders and  other tipped employees of the Bar (the “Collective Action Members”) at any time during the  three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the original complaint (the “Statutory  Period”).   28.  Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants as a tipped employee, but, between  November 2017 and July 2019, did not receive any wages from Defendants.    30.  Defendants subjected Plaintiff and Collective Action Members to the same  pay provision(s) in that neither Plaintiff nor Collective Action Members received wages  representing the tipped minimum wage from Defendants.   31.  The Collective Action Members are thus owed unpaid wages under the FLSA  for the same reasons as Plaintiff.   33.  Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 23”),  Plaintiff Weathersby seeks to prosecute her NYLL claims as class actions on behalf of herself  and others who worked as Bartenders or other tipped employees of the Bar (the “Class  Members”) at any time during the six-year period immediately preceding the filing of the  original complaint (the “Statutory Period”).   34.  While the exact number of Class Members is presently unknown, it is  estimated that there are approximately twenty-five to thirty-five Class Members.   35.  The group of potential Class Members is so numerous as to make it  impracticable to bring them all before the Court, for which reason Plaintiff initiates this  litigation for all persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23.   36.  Despite the numerical size of the Class, the identities of Class Members can  be ascertained through Defendants’ payroll records.   37.  Plaintiff and her counsel do not anticipate any difficulties in the management of  this action as a class action.   38.  Plaintiff is committed to vigorous prosecution of this action, will adequately  represent the purported Class Members in this action, and has retained competent counsel  experienced in class action litigation.   39.  Plaintiff is a Class Member and has no interest antagonistic to or in conflict  with other Class Members.   41. The claims or defenses of the represented party is typical of the claims or defenses of the Class Members.   42. Plaintiff has the same interests as other Class Members in prosecuting the claims against Defendants.   43. Plaintiff and all Class Members sustained damages as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct.   45.  Furthermore, due to the expense and burden of individual litigation, it would  be extraordinarily difficult for Class Members to redress the wrongs done to them  individually.   46.  Plaintiff and The Law Offices of Veronica S. Jung, PLLC, will fairly  and adequately assert and protect the interests of the Class Members.  47.  Plaintiff Vicki Weathersby was employed by Defendants as a Bartender at  Manitoba’s from 2011 to 2019.     48.  Manitoba’s is a bar located on Manhattan’s Lower East Side.     49.  The Bar is owned by Richard Manitoba and Steven Van Zandt; Mr. Manitoba  oversees the Bar’s day-to-day operation.    50.  The Bar is named after Mr. Manitoba, and trades heavily on Mr. Manitoba’s  fame as “Handsome Dick Manitoba,” a punk rock musician.    51.  Mr. Manitoba regularly spent time at the Bar entertaining friends and guests.  He  was typically at the bar multiple times a week.    52.  Ms. Weathersby and the other bartenders at the Bar were tipped employees.   Accordingly, Ms. Weathersby was entitled to receive the tips she earned during any given shift  and the tipped minimum wage.     53.  During her employment at Manitoba’s the general minimum wage ranged from  $7.25 per hour in 2011 to $15 per hour in 2019.  During that period the tipped minimum – the  minimum cash wage the bar was allowed to pay its tipped employees – increased from $5.00 per  hour in 2011 to $10.00 per hour in 2019.   55.  Ms. Weathersby’s earnings varied wildly: on a profitable weekend night shift  Ms. Weathersby could earn a few hundred dollars in tips, but on weekday mornings and  afternoons she would often earn less than the minimum wage.    56.  The Bar, from the beginning of Ms. Weathersby’s employment into late 2017,  often delayed paying wages to its staff.     57.  Ms. Weathersby and others had no recourse but to wait until Defendants elected  to pay them their back wages; this could take anywhere from days to months.    58.  Ms. Weathersby is a professional bartender: she has decades of experience  working as a bartender and has worked in a wide range of establishments.    59.  While bars and restaurants often need to delay payment of wages, Ms.  Weathersby had never experienced delays so routine and severe as those at Manitoba’s.   60.  While Ms. Weathersby and other went unpaid, Mr. Manitoba treated the Bar as  his own purse, taking out hundreds of dollars each week and using money set aside for  contractors – such as security and DJs – for himself.    61.  When Ms. Weathersby asked Mr. Manitoba for the wages she was owed he  claimed the bar was “broke,” a difficult excuse to swallow given his own personal withdrawals  from the till.    62.  Mr. Manitoba ran the Bar.  He hired and fired staff and established policies for  paying out employees.    63.  Starting in November 2017, Defendants ceased paying its employees the tipped  minimum wage altogether.    65.  Defendants should have paid Ms. Weathersby $69.20 for each 8-hour shift in  2018; instead, she received nothing.   66.  Ms. Weathersby repeatedly pleaded with Mr. Manitoba for her wages.  She had  no other source of income and – due to the Bar’s withholding of wages – she began falling  behind on rent and medical bills.    67.  Ultimately, Manitoba’s closed in and around July 2019, leaving its employees  empty-handed.   68.  Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of those similarly situated, hereby realleges  and incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 67 with the same  force as though separately alleged herein.   69.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants  within the meaning of the FLSA.   70.  The FLSA mandates that employers pay their employees a basic minimum  wage.  The FLSA provides that employers may pay tipped employees a lower cash wage  as long as the difference between the lower wage and the basic minimum wage is made  up by the employee in tips received.    71.  Where a state minimum wage exceeds the federal minimum wage, the  FLSA mandates and enforces payment of the higher wage.    73.  Due to Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from  Defendants her back pay, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and  interest related to the action.  74.  Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of those similarly situated, hereby realleges  and incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 73 with the same  force as though separately alleged herein.   75.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants  within the meaning of the NYLL.   76.  The NYLL mandates that employers pay their employees a basic minimum  wage.  The NYLL provides that employers may pay tipped employees a lower cash wage  as long as the difference between the lower wage and the basic minimum wage is made  up by the employee in tips received.    77.  Between November 2017 and July 2019, Plaintiff did not receive any  basic wage from the bar – she was only paid in tips.    78.  As a result, Plaintiff was not paid the tipped minimum wage for hours  worked.   Unpaid Minimum Wage in Violation of the NYLL   Unpaid Minimum Wage in Violation of the FLSA  