15.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §207, Plaintiffs seek to prosecute her FLSA claims as a  5  collective action on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly employed by Defendant at  any time since June 26, 2015 (time tolled by failure to post notice) to the entry of judgment in  this case (the “Collective Action Period”), who were non-exempt employees within the meaning  of the FLSA and who were not paid minimum wages and/or overtime compensation at rates not  less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours  per workweek (the “Collective Action Members”).   16.  Defendants failed to post a notice in a conspicuous location indicating that  Plaintiffs and similar home health aid employees were entitled to minimum wages and to  overtime and one and one half times their regular hourly rate.   17.  This collective action class is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts on which  the calculation of that number are presently within the sole control of the Defendant, upon  information and belief, there are at least 40 members of the Class during the Collective Action  Period, most of whom would not be likely to file individual suits because they lack adequate  financial resources, access to attorneys or knowledge of their claims.   18.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action  Members and has retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the fields of employment  law and class action litigation.  Plaintiffs have no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with  those members of this collective action.    19.  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  6  small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make 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 a collective action.    20.  Questions of law and fact common to the members of the collective action  predominate over questions that may affect only individual members because Defendant has  acted on grounds generally applicable to all members. Among the common questions of law and  fact common to Plaintiffs and other Collective Action Members are  a. whether the Defendant employed the Collective Action members within the  meaning of the FLSA;  b. whether the Defendant failed to keep true and accurate time records for all  hours worked by Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members;  c. what proof of hours worked is sufficient where the employer fails in its duty  to maintain time records;  d. whether Defendant failed to post or keep posted a notice explaining the  minimum wages and overtime pay rights provided by the FLSA in any area  where Plaintiffs are employed, in violation of C.F.R. § 516.4;  e. whether Defendant failed to pay the Collective Action Members minimum  wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours  per workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the regulations promulgated  thereunder;  f. whether Defendant’s violations of the FLSA are willful as that term is used  within the context of the FLSA;  7  g. whether Defendant is liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but  not limited to compensatory, punitive and statutory damages, interest, costs  and disbursements and attorneys’ fees; and  h. whether Defendant should be enjoined from such violations of the FLSA in  the future.   21.  Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.  22.  Plaintiffs sue on their own behalf and for their class claims on behalf of a class of  persons under Rules 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   23.  Plaintiffs brings their New York State Law claims on behalf of all persons who  were employed by Defendant at any time since June 26, 2015, to the entry of judgment in this  case (the “Class Period”), who were not paid all their straight time wages, minimum wages  (including those required by the NY Health Care Worker Wage Parity Act), spread of hour  wages, and/or overtime wages and/or were not provided the notices required by the Wage  Theft Prevention Act (the “Class” or “Class Members”).     24.  The persons in the Class identified above are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, and the  facts on which the calculation of that number are presently within the sole control of the  Defendant, upon information and belief, there at least 40 members of Class during the Class  Period.   25.  The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class, and a class action is  8  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 plaintiffs lack the  financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against corporate  defendants.    26.  The Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with  respect to the class as a whole.    27.  Plaintiffs are committed to pursuing her action and has retained competent  counsel experienced in employment law and class action litigation.    28.  Plaintiffs have the same interests in this matter as all other members of the class  and Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class.     29.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over  any questions solely affecting the individual members of the Class, including but not limited to:  a. whether the Defendant employed the members of the Class within the meaning of the  New York Labor Law;  b. whether the Defendant failed to keep true and accurate time records for all hours  worked by Plaintiffs and members of the Class;  c. what proof of hours worked is sufficient where employers fail in their duty to  maintain time records;  d. whether Defendant failed and/or refused to pay the members of the Class for all hours  worked by them as well as premium pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per  9  workweek as well as spread of hours pay for hours worked a spread of more than ten  hours, within the meaning of the New York Labor Law;  e. whether the Defendant is liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not  limited to compensatory, interest, costs and disbursements and attorneys’ fees;   f. whether the Defendant should be enjoined from such violations of the New York  Labor Law in the future; and  30.  GALYNA ZINKO (“GALYNA”) was a home health aide/maid employed by  Paramount Home Care Agency Inc. (“Paramount”), and Roman Offengeym, Owner and  CEO,  and his mother Marina Offengeym (collectively “Defendants” or the “Company”), from about  February 13, 2019 to September 25, 2020 (the “time period”).    31.  During the time period GALYNA worked for one client who had dementia and  eventually died of throat cancer.   32.  Defendants are an employment agency that sent GALYNA to work as a home  health aide/maid for numerous customers located in New York City.     33.  During the time period, Roman Offengeym and Marina Offengeym each   participated in the day-to-day operations of Paramount.   34.  During the time period, Offengeym and Marina Offengeym each had authority  over the management, supervision, and oversight of the Paramount’s affairs in general and  exercised operational control over Paramount’s home health aide employees and other  employees and his decisions directly affected the nature and condition of the home health care  10  employees’ employment.   35.  During the time period,  Offengeym and Marina Offengeym each had the power  to hire and terminate me and the other home health aide employees of the Company (“home  health aides”) and did hire and terminate health aide employees, (2) supervised and controlled  me and the other home health aides’ schedules and conditions of employment, (3) determined the  rate and method of payment of myself and the other home health aides, and (4) maintained  employment records related to myself and the other home health aide employees.    36.  During the time period, GALYNA never worked for Defendants outside of New  York City.   37.  During the time period, GALYNA maintained her own residence, and did not  legally reside in the homes of Defendants’ clients or in the home of her employer, as her primary  residence.   38.  During the time period, GALYNA was not an “exempt companion” of the  Defendants’ clients.   39.  While employed by Defendants, GALYNA generally worked more than 40 hours  per week and was not paid time and one half for my hours worked over 40 in a work week.    40.  GALYNA worked 24-hour shifts for Defendants during my employment and  regularly worked 2 24-hour shifts in a week.   41.  Defendants had no policies in place to determine if a health aide received three  one hour meal breaks during a 24-hour live in shift and did not have any policies to determine if  any health aide received 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep and 8 hours of sleep during a 24-hour live  in shift.    11   42.  Even when Defendants had knowledge that a health aide was unable to get any  sleep during the night or take any meal breaks, Defendants still illegally deducted 8 hours of  sleep time and three hours of meal break time from the health aide’s hours worked.   43.  Defendants had no policies in place to identify which health aides were not  getting sleep or breaks during 24-hour live in shifts and to pay them for their lack of sleep or  meal breaks.   44.  Defendants had no policy to identify which aides were not provided a bed to sleep  on during 24-hour live in shifts.   45.  Even when Defendants knew an aide was not given a bed to sleep on during 24- hour live in shifts, Defendants did not pay the health aide for 8 hours of the aide’s 24 hour shift.     46.  When GALYNA worked 24-hour shifts,  GALYNA was required to stay  overnight at the residences of Defendants’ clients, and needed to be ready and available to  provide assistance to Defendants’ clients as needed.   47.  When GALYNA worked 24-hour shifts, GALYNA was not permitted to leave the  client unattended.   48.  GALYNA was only paid for approximately 13 hours of er 24-hours shifts.  GALYNA  was not paid any hourly rate for the other 11 hours worked.   49.  GALYNA was generally not permitted to leave the client’s residence during her  shift.   50.  Because Defendants’ clients were often elderly and/or suffering from dementia,  GALYNA did not get an opportunity to sleep for eight hours or 5 hours without any interruption.   51.  GALYNA did not get a one-hour break for each of three meals per day.   12   52.  GALYNA was often forced to combine her meal times with the meal times of the  Defendants’ clients because they needed feeding assistance or constant supervision.   53.  GALYNA did not receive the “spread of hours” premium of one additional hour  at the minimum wage rate for the days in which GALYNA worked a spread of more than ten  hours.   54.  GALYNA also did not receive minimum wages, including minimum wages under  the Wage Parity Act, for all her hours worked and was not paid time and one half the minimum  wage rate for her overtime hours and was not paid full time and one half her regular rate for her  overtime hours.      55.  Defendants never provided or offered to GALYNA any health insurance, free of  charge, and never paid GALYNA for any vacation or holiday time off.   56.  Medicaid paid Defendants for some or all of GALYNA’s services and the  services of the other similar home health aide employees.    57.  GALYNA’s co-workers performed the same and/or similar work to that of herself  and were paid in a similar manner and subject to the same rules and policies (“similar health  aides”).   58.  The similar health aides did not “live in” the homes of Defendants’ clients as their  primary residences.   59.  The similar health aides generally worked more than 40 hours per week, but were  not paid for every hour that they worked.   60.  The similar health aides were only paid for approximately 13 hours of their 24- hours shifts, and were not paid any hourly rate for the other 11 hours worked.  13   61.  The similar health aides were generally not permitted to leave the client’s  residence during their shift.   62.  When the similar health aides worked 24-hour shifts, they were required to stay  overnight at the residences of Defendants’ clients, and were required to be ready and available to  provide assistance to Defendants’ clients as needed.   63.  At all relevant times, Defendants have maintained a practice and policy of paying  similar health aides for only 13 hours of their 24-hour shifts in violation of New York Labor  Law.     64.  Defendants had no policies in place to determine if a health aide received three  one hour meal breaks during a 24-hour live in shift and did not have any policies to determine if  any health aide received 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep and 8 hours of sleep during a 24-hour live  in shift.     65.  When GALYNA told the supervisor that GALYNA was unable to get any sleep  during the night or any meal breaks, Defendants still deducted 8 hours of sleep time and three  hours of meal breaks from my hours worked.   66.  Defendants had no policies in place to identify which health aides were not  getting sleep or breaks during 24-hour live in shifts and to pay them for their lack of sleep or  meal breaks.   67.  At all relevant times, Defendants have maintained a practice and policy of  assigning myself and similar health aides to work more than 40 hours per week without paying  us one and one half times the basic minimum hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty  per week, in violation of New York State Labor Law and the Wage Parity Act.  14   68.  GALYNA and the similar health aides did not receive the “spread of hours”  premium of one additional hour at the minimum wage rate for the days in which they worked a  spread of more than ten hours.   69.  Defendants’ actions as described herein were intentional and not made in good  faith.   70.  When GALYNA  first started to work 24-hour shifts, GALYNA complained to  her coordinator and to payroll, that GALYNA was not able to sleep during the night or get meal  breaks but was not being paid for 8 hours of alleged sleep and 3 hours of meal breaks.  They  responded that the Company does not pay more than 13 hours for a 24-hour shift.   71.  GALYNA was not able to get 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep or 8 hours of sleep  during 24 hour live in shifts because GALYNA generally had to get up at least every four hours  to attend to the client, which included among other services, to provide food to the client, to take  the client to the bathroom, to get the client a glass of water, to calm the client when the client  awoke in stress, to clean the client’s bed when the client urinated or defecated in the bed and/or  to change the client’s pajamas.   72.  The client lived in a room studio apartment, and therefore GALYNA slept in the  same room as the client which made it impossible not to be woken repeatedly by the client when  sleeping and impossible not to be interrupted by the client when eating.     73.  GALYNA’s client had dimentia and never continuously slept for more than 4  hours at any time.     74.  During the time period, GALYNA had to turn the client every 2 hours and  therefore did not get 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep during her 24 hour shifts.  GALYNA  15  reported this turning by a code by phone at the end of each shift.    75.  During the 24 hour shifts, GALYNA  was only given a couch to sleep on which  did not have  any fold out bed and was very uncomfortable and did not allow me to get any  sleep.   76.  During the time period, GALYNA was not paid full regular wages for all her  hours worked and was not paid overtime wages for all of her hours worked over forty in a  workweek (“overtime”), and was not paid an extra hour of pay for her hours worked over a  spread of 10 hours per day.   77.  During the time period, GALYNA often worked for 24 hours staying overnight at  the client’s house, and on these days was only paid for 13 hours, despite the fact that her sleep  was regularly interrupted generally at least 3-4 times by the client throughout the night which  prevented her from getting 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep and/or 8 hours of sleep and despite the  fact that GALYNA was not given any time off for meal breaks.   78.  GALYNA also generally signed in and out using the client’s land line phone.    79.  When GALYNA clocked out, GALYNA generally entered codes showing the  types of work that GALYNA had performed.  At times GALYNA filed handwritten time sheets.  There were no codes to report not getting sleep or breaks during 24-hour shifts.   80.  During the time period, GALYNA did not receive a meal break because  GALYNA was on call or working during her break and regularly interrupted by the client while  eating.   81.  During the time period, GALYNA was not paid for all her hours worked and was  not paid for her hours worked over 40 hours a week (“overtime hours”) at time and one half my  16  regular wages and at times was not paid for all my hours at the minimum wage rate.    82.  During the time period,  GALYNA was not specifically notified by Defendants of  the regular pay day designated by Defendants, Defendants’ name, address and principle place of  business and telephone number and my specific rate of pay as required by the New York Wage  Theft Prevention Act.  GALYNA has not been given any specific notice of this information to  sign in Ukranian, her first language or in English or in any other language and has not signed any  such notice.  GALYNA ZINKO  