15.  Defendant, DAVID MANDELL, actively participates in the day-to-day  operation of KEY FOOD. For instance, he is responsible for the facilities management of  at least five (5) of Key Food supermarket locations. As such, he supervises and directs  the work of the employees, including individual store managers, to ensure high standards;  instructs employees how to perform their jobs; and corrects employees for errors made.   16.  Defendant, DAVID MANDELL, creates and approves all crucial business  policies at each store location. This includes decisions concerning the hiring and firing of  employees, the number of hours the employees work, the amount of pay that the  employees are entitled to receive, and the manner and method by which the employees  are paid.   17.  Defendant, DAVID MANDELL, is also responsible for achieving KEY  FOOD'S sales goals, developing and expanding business, monitoring profits and losses,  developing annual budgets, and executing business plans.   18.  Defendant, DAVID MANDELL, is further responsible for ensuring each  Key Food supermarket location operates on a cost efficient basis within an established  framework of the company's business policies, which includes monitoring and limiting  business overhead and expenses.  4   19.  On or about February I 0, 2018, Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a  non-exempt stock person at the Oakland Gardens Store Location.   20.  Neither at the time of his hire nor anytime thereafter did Defendants  provide Plaintiff with a written wage notice setting forth his regular hourly rate of pay  and his corresponding overtime rate of pay.   21.  Plaintiff worked for Defendants m that capacity until on or about  September 19, 2018.   22.  Plaintiff worked over forty (40) hours per week.   23.  Throughout the entirety of his employment, Plaintiff worked six (6) days  per week, and his work shift consisted of ten (10) hours on Monday from 11 :00 a.m. until  9:00 p.m.; nine (9) hours per day on Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. until  4:00 p.m.; nine (9) hours on Wednesday from 12:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m.; and eleven (11)  hours on Thursday from 10:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Plaintiff normally received a one (1)  hour lunch break each day.   24.  Plaintiff was required to punch a time clock or other time-recording device  at the start and end of his work shift.   25.  Throughout the entirety of his employment, Plaintiff was paid, in cash, at  the rate of $13 per hour straight time for all hours worked, and worked fifty-one (51)  hours per week. Work performed above forty ( 40) hours per week was not paid at the  statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law.   26.  Upon paying Plaintiff his cash wages each week, Defendants failed to  provide Plaintiff with a written wage statement setting forth his gross wages, deductions,  and net wages.  5   27.  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-halt), or the New York State overtime rate ( of time and one-halt), in  direct violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and  New York State Department of Labor Regulations.   28.  At all relevant times, upon information and belief, and during the course  of Plaintiffs employment, Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient time  records.  29.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as class representative on  behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt, non-managerial  employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants since October 15, 2015  until the close of the opt-in period (the "Collective Action Period"), and who were  compensated at rates less than time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty  ( 40) hours per workweek (the "Collective Action Members").   3 7.  Plaintiff sues on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons under  Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  8   30.  The 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  upon which the calculation of that number are presently within the sole control of the  Defendants, upon infon.nation and belief, there are more than forty ( 40) Collective Action  Members who worked for Defendants 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. Therefore, Plaintiff submits  6  that this matter should be certified as a collective action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §  216(b).   31.  Plaintiff 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. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary  to or in conflict with those members of this collective action.   32.  This action should be certified as a collective action because the  prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of  either inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the  class, or adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that would as a  practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the  adjudication, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.   33.  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 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.   34.  Questions Qf law and fact common to the members of the collective action  predominate over questions that may affect only individual members because Defendants  have acted on grounds generally applicable to all members.  Among the common  questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and other Collective Action Members are:  7  a.  Whether Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Members within the meaning of the FLSA;  b.  Whether Defendants failed to keep true and accurate wage and  hour records for all hours worked by Plaintiff and the Collective  Action Members;  c.  What proof of hours worked is sufficient where the employer fails  in its duty to maintain wage and hour records;  d.  Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective  Action Members overtime compensation for all hours worked in  excess of forty ( 40) hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA  and the regulations promulgated thereunder;  e.  Whe1her Defendants' violations of the FLSA are willful as that  terms is used within the context of the FLSA; and,  f.  Whether Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder,  including but not limited to compensatory, liquidated and statutory  damages, interest, costs and disbursements, and attorneys' fees.   35.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the  management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.   36.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by  Defendants' wrongful conduct.  38.  Plaintiff brings his New York Labor Law claims on behalf of all persons  who were employed by Defendants at any time since October 16, 2012 until the entry of  judgment in this case (the "Class Period") who were non-exempt employees within the  meaning of the New York Labor Law and have not been paid overtime compensation in  violation of the New York Labor Law (the "Class").   39.  Upon information and belief, the persons in the Class identified herein are  so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  Although the identity and  precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts upon which the calculation of  that number may be ascertained are presently within the sole control of Defendants, the  Class consists of all non-managerial current and former employees and, therefore, is so  numerous that joinder is impracticable and most of whom would not be likely to file  individual suits because they lack financial resources, access to attorneys, or knowledge  of their claims.   40.  The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class, and 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 individuals  lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against a  corporate defendant.   41.  Defendant:) have acted 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.   42.  Plaintiff has committed himself to pursuing this action and has retained  counsel experienced in employment law and class action litigation .  ...  9   43.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the NY Class  members.  Plaintiff understands that, as class representative, he assumes a fiduciary  responsibility to the Class and Collective Action Members to represent their interests  fairly and adequately, and that he must consider the interests of the Class and Collective  Action Members just as h~ would represent and consider his own interests, and that he  may not favor his own interests over those of the Class or Collective Action Members.   44.  Plaintiff recognizes that any resolution of a class action lawsuit, including  any settlement or dismissal thereof, must be in the best interests of the Class and  Collective Action Members.  Plaintiff understands that in order to provide adequate  representation, he must remain informed of litigation developments and he understands  that he may be called upon to testify in depositions and at trial.   45.  Plaintiff has the same interests in this matter as all other members of the  Class and Plaintiffs claims are typical of the Class.   46.  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 Defendants employed Plaintiff and Class members within  the meaning of the New York Labor Law;  b.  Whether Defendants failed to keep true and accurate wage and  hour records for all hours worked by Plaintiff and the Class;  c.  What proof of hours worked is sufficient where the employer fails  in its duty to maintain time records;  10  d.  Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the  Class overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of  forty (40) hours per workweek, in violation of the New York Labor  Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and,  e.  Whether Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder,  including but not limited to compensatory, liquidated and statutory  damages, interest, costs and disbursements and attorneys' fees.  48.  At all relevant times, upon information and belief, Defendants were and  continue to be an employer 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 the Collective Action Members are covered individuals within the  meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   49.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Collective  Action Members within the meaning of the FLSA.   50.  Upon information and belief, at least within each of the three (3) most  recent years from the date of this Complaint, KEY FOOD had gross revenues in excess of  $500,000.  11   51.  Plaintiff an~ .the Collective Action Members were entitled to be paid at the  statutory rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of the maximum hours  provided for in the FLSA.   52.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members  overtime compensation in the lawful amount for all hours worked in excess of the  maximum hours provided for in the FLSA.   53.  At all relevant times, Defendants had, and continues to have a policy and  practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and one- half to Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members for all hours worked in excess of  forty ( 40) hours per work week, which violated and continues to violate the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a)(l) and 215(a).   54.  Defendants knowingly and willfully disregarded the prov1s10ns of the  FLSA as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Members at the statutory overtime rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in  excess of forty ( 40) hours per week, when they knew or should have known such was due  and that non-payment of overtime compensation would financially injure Plaintiff and the  Collective Action Members.   55.  As a result of Defendants' failure to properly record, report, credit and/or  compensate its employees, including Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members,  Defendants have failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to each of its  employees sufficient to determine the wages, hours and other conditions and practices of  employment in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.A. §§ 201 et seq., including 29 U.S .C. §§  21 l(c) and 215(a).  12   56.  Defendants failed to properly disclose or appnse Plaintiff and the  Collective Action Members of their rights under the FLSA.   57.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of the FLSA,  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members are entitled to liquidated damages pursuant  to the FLSA.   58.  Due to the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff  and the Collective Action Members suffered damages in an amount not presently  ascertainable of unpaid overtime compensation, an equal amount as liquidated damages,  and prejudgment interest thereon.   59.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members are entitled to an award of  their reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  60.  Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers each and every allegation and statement  contained in paragraphs "I" through "59" of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   61.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendants employed Plaintiff and members  of the Class within the me_aning of New York Labor Law§§ 2 and 651.   62.  Plaintiff and Class members were entitled to be paid at the statutory rate of  time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.   63.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class members overtime  compensation in the lawful amount for all hours worked in excess of forty ( 40) per week  in direct contravention of the New York Labor Law.   64.  Defendants had, and continue to have a policy and practice of refusing to  pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and one-half to Plaintiff and  13  Class members for all hours worked in excess of forty ( 40) hours per work week, which  violated and continues to violate the New York Labor Law.   65.  Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff and members of the Class with a  statement with every payment of wages listing gross wages, deductions and net wages, in  contravention of New York Labor Law § 195(3) and New York State Department of  Labor Regulations§ 142-2.7.   66.  Defendants failed to keep true and accurate records of hours worked by  each employee covered by an hourly minimum wage rate, the wages paid to all  employees, and other similar information in contravention of New York Labor Law §  661.   67.  Defendants failed to establish, maintain, and preserve for not less than six  ( 6) years payroll records showing the hours worked, gross wages, deductions, and net  wages for each employee,. in contravention of the New York Labor Law § 194( 4 ), and  New York State Department of Labor Regulations§ 142-2.6.   68.  Neither at the time of his hiring, nor anytime thereafter, did Defendants  notify Plaintiff in writing of his regular and overtime rates of pay and their regularly  designated payday, in contravention of New York Labor Law§ 195(1).   69.  Due to Defendants' New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiff and Class  members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime compensation,  reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to New  York Labor Law§ 663(1) el al. and§ 198.  14   70.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to liquidated damages  pursuant to New York Labor Law § 663(1), as well as civil penalties and/or liquidated  damages pursuant to the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.  [Violation of the New York Labor Law]   [Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act]  4 7.  Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers each and every allegation and statement  contained in paragraphs "1" through "46" of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.  