16.  Plaintiffs seek to bring this suit to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum  wage and overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the applicable provisions  of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), individually, on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of those  in the following collective:  Current and former non-managerial employees, who during the  applicable FLSA limitations period, performed any work for  Defendants at the Hotel, and who consent to file a claim to recover  damages for minimum wage and overtime compensation that is  legally due to them (“FLSA Plaintiffs”).   17.  Defendants treated Plaintiffs and all FLSA Plaintiffs similarly in that Plaintiffs  and all FLSA Plaintiffs: (1) performed similar tasks, as described in the “Background Facts”  section below; (2) were subject to the same laws and regulations; (3) were paid in the same or  similar manner; (4) were required to work in excess of forty hours in a workweek; (5) were not  paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked; and (6) were not paid the required one and  one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked per workweek in excess  of forty.   18.  At all relevant times, Defendants are and have been aware of the requirements to  pay Plaintiffs and all FLSA Plaintiffs at an amount equal to the rate of one and one-half times  their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked each workweek above forty, and to pay  Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiff at the minimum wage rate for all hours worked, yet they  purposefully and willfully chose and choose not to do so.  7   19.  Thus, all FLSA Plaintiffs are victims of Defendants’ pervasive practice of  willfully refusing to pay their employees overtime compensation for all hours worked per  workweek above forty, or at the minimum wage for all hours worked, in violation of the FLSA.  20.  In addition, Plaintiffs seek to maintain this action as a class action pursuant to  FRCP 23(b)(3), individually, on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of those who are similarly  situated who, during the applicable limitations period, Defendants subjected to violations of the  NYLL and the NYCRR.   21.  Under FRCP 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs must plead that:  a.  The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable;  b.  There are questions of law or fact common to the class that predominate  over any individual questions of law or fact;  c.  Claims or defenses of the representative are typical of the class;  d.  The representative will fairly and adequately protect the class; and  e.  A class action is superior to other methods of adjudication.   22.  Plaintiffs seek certification of the following FRCP 23 class:  Current and former non-managerial employees, who  worked for Defendants during the statutory period within the State  of New York at the Hotel, who: (1) did not receive compensation  from Defendants at the legally-required overtime rate of pay for  each hour worked over forty hours; and/or (2) did not receive  compensation from Defendants at the legally-required minimum  wage rate of pay for each hour worked; and/or (3) did not receive  compensation from Defendants at the agreed upon straight wage  rate of pay for each hour worked; and/or (4) did not receive spread  of hours pay for each workday exceeding ten hours; and/or (5)  were not provided with accurate wage statements on each payday  pursuant to NYLL § 195(3) (“Rule 23 Plaintiffs”).   8  Numerosity   23.  During the previous six years, Defendants have, in total, employed at least forty  employees that are putative members of this class.  Common Questions of Law and/or Fact   24.  There are questions of law and fact common to each and every Rule 23 Plaintiff  that predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the FRCP 23 class,  including but not limited to the following: (1) the duties that Defendants required and require  each Rule 23 Plaintiff to perform; (2) the manner of compensating each Rule 23 Plaintiff; (3)  whether Rule 23 Plaintiffs worked and work in excess of forty hours per week; (4) whether  Defendants failed and fail to pay Rule 23 Plaintiffs proper overtime compensation for all hours  worked in excess of forty hours in a week; (5) whether Defendants failed and fail to pay Rule 23  Plaintiffs at least the proper minimum wage for all hours worked; (6) whether Defendants failed  and fail to pay Rule 23 Plaintiffs the agreed upon straight wage for all hours worked; (7) whether  Defendants failed and fail to pay Rule 23 Plaintiffs spread of hours premiums; (8) whether  Defendants furnished and furnish Rule 23 Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on each  payday containing the information that NYLL § 195(3) requires; (9) whether Defendants kept  and maintained accurate records of hours that the Rule 23 Plaintiffs worked; (10) whether  Defendants kept and maintained records with respect to the compensation that they paid to the  Rule 23 Plaintiffs for each hour worked; (11) whether Defendants have any affirmative defenses  to any of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs’ claims; (12) whether the Defendants’ actions with respect to the  Rule 23 Plaintiffs were in violation of the NYLL and supporting regulations; and (13) if so, what  constitutes the proper measure of damages.  9  Typicality of Claims and/or Defenses   25.  As described in the “Background Facts” section below, Defendants employed  and/or employ Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Plaintiffs within the meaning of the NYLL.  Plaintiffs’  claims are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs whom they seek to represent, as the Rule  23 Plaintiffs work and/or have worked for Defendants as non-managerial employees, and  Defendants failed to pay them overtime pay for all hours worked in a week over forty, the  minimum wage for all hours worked, and/or the agreed upon straight rate for all hours worked,  or to provide them with spread of hours premiums when appropriate or proper wage statements  on each payday.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs enjoy the same statutory rights under the  NYLL to receive overtime wages for all hours worked over forty hours, at least the minimum  wage and/or the agreed upon straight wage for all hours worked, a spread of hours premium  when their workday exceeded ten hours, and to be furnished with accurate wage statements on  each payday.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs have all sustained similar types of damages as  a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with the NYLL and supporting regulations.  Plaintiffs  and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs all have suffered injury including lack of compensation or under- compensation due to Defendants’ common policies, practices, and patterns of conduct.  Thus,  Plaintiffs’ claims and/or Defendants’ defenses to those claims are typical of the Rule 23  Plaintiffs’ claims and/or Defendants’ defenses to those claims.     Adequacy   26.  Plaintiffs, as described below, worked and work the same or similar hours as the  Rule 23 Plaintiffs throughout their employment with Defendants.  Defendants did not pay  Plaintiffs overtime for all hours worked over forty hours in a week, did not pay Plaintiffs at least  the proper minimum wage and/or the agreed upon straight wage for all hours worked, did not  10  pay Plaintiffs spread of hours premium when their workday exceeded ten hours, and did not  furnish Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on each payday, which is substantially similar to  how Defendants paid and treated the Rule 23 Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs fully anticipate providing  discovery responses and testifying under oath as to all of the matters raised in this Complaint and  that will be raised in Defendants’ Answer.  Thus, Plaintiffs would properly and adequately  represent the current and former employees whom Defendants have subjected to the treatment  alleged herein.   Superiority   27.  Plaintiffs have no, or very few, material facts relating to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs’  claims that are atypical of those of the putative class.  Indeed, at all relevant times herein,  Defendants treated Plaintiffs identically, or at the very least, substantially similarly, to the Rule  23 Plaintiffs.   28.  Any lawsuit brought by an employee of Defendants would be identical to a suit  brought by any other employee for the same violations.  Thus, separate litigation would risk  inconsistent results.   29.  Accordingly, this means of protecting Rule 23 Plaintiffs’ rights is superior to any  other method, and this action is properly maintainable as a class action under FRCP 23(b)(3).    30.  Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel has substantial experience in this field of law.   31.  Defendant SSN owns, operates, and/or manages at least sixteen hospitality  establishments throughout the United States, including the Hotel located at 38-05 Hunters Point  Avenue, Long Island City, New York.     11   32.  Defendant Shri owns, operates, and/or manages hospitality establishments,  including that same Hotel jointly with SSN.   33.  At all relevant times, Defendant SSN was and is listed as the employer on  materials that Defendants issued to their employees working at the Hotel, such as employment  manuals and employee health insurance policies.   34.  At all relevant times, Defendant Shri was and is listed as the employer on all  paychecks and the inaccurate wage statements that Defendants issued and issue to their  employees working at the Hotel.    35.  At all relevant times, Defendant Bhai operates and manages the Hotel, overseeing  its operations on a daily basis, and is ultimately responsible for all matters with respect to hiring,  firing, and disciplining Hotel employees, as well as for determining employees’ rates and  methods of pay and hours worked.    Remi Yazer   36.  In 2010, Defendant Bhai, on behalf of all Defendants, approved the hiring of  Plaintiff Yazer to work as a front desk agent and night auditor in the Hotel.  Plaintiff Yazer is  still employed in that capacity as of the date of commencement of this action.     37.  As a front desk agent, Plaintiff Yazer’s primary duties consisted and consist of  taking reservations, assisting guests, accepting and processing credit card payments for  Defendants’ customers, and registering room assignments and checkouts.     38.  As night auditor, Plaintiff Yazer’s primary duties consisted and consist of duties  similar to that of a front desk agent, with the addition of compiling daily occupancy, credit card  transactions, and financial reports.    12   39.  In 2011 Plaintiff Yazer’s duties as a front desk agent and night auditor were  expanded to include that of a houseman.  Plaintiff Yazer performed and performs his houseman  duties concurrently with his duties as a front desk agent and/or night auditor.   40.  As a houseman, Plaintiff Yazer’s primary duties consisted and consist of making  deliveries to rooms, retrieving items for guests, and performing other maintenance duties.    41.  Throughout his employment, Defendants usually required Plaintiff Yazer to work  between sixty-and-110 hours per week.   42.  From the start of his employment in 2010 to approximately November 2013,  Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff Yazer a wage of $11.00 per hour and an overtime rate of  $16.50 per hour.  Sometime in November 2013, Defendants agreed to increase Plaintiff Yazer’s  hourly wage to his current rate of $11.45 and his overtime rate to $17.18.  Defendants paid and  pay Plaintiff Yazer every two weeks by check.   43.  Despite that agreement as to his straight and overtime hourly rates, Defendants  paid and continue to pay Plaintiff Yazer for only some of his hours worked over forty at the  statutorily-required overtime rate, and more often than not, failed and fail to pay Yazer for the  vast majority of his hours worked over forty at any rate.  Usually, Defendants pay Yazer for  eighty hours at his straight hourly rate (although sometimes less) and for a maximum of ten  hours at his overtime premium (although many times they pay him for fewer than ten hours of  overtime), while failing to pay Plaintiff Yazer for any remaining hours worked at any rate.   44.  By way of example only, during the week of Saturday, January 23, 2016 through  Friday, January 29, 2016, Defendants required Plaintiff Yazer to work, and Yazer did work, the  following schedule, without permitting him to take a scheduled or uninterrupted break:  13  Saturday, January 23, 2016: 9:45 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. the following day;  Sunday, January 24, 2016: 9:00 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. the following day;  Monday, January 25, 2016: 8:45 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. the following day;  Tuesday, January 26, 2016: 8:30 p.m. until noon the following day;  Wednesday, January 27, 2016: 3:30 p.m. until midnight;  Thursday, January 28, 2016: 4:45 p.m. until midnight;  Friday, January 29, 2016: 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 a.m. the following day.  Thus, adding up the hours for this one workweek, Yazer worked 102.5 hours.  Pursuant to his  agreed upon rate, the Defendants should have paid Yazer for forty hours at his straight time rate  of $11.45, or $458, and for 62.5 hours at his overtime rate of $17.18, or $1,073.75, for a total of  $1,531.75 just for this week.  Yet, instead, for the entire two-week pay period, Defendants paid  Yazer for eighty hours at his straight hourly wage and seven hours at his overtime hourly rate, or  a total of $1,036.23, which is $495.52 less than Yazer should have received for just the one week  during which he worked 102.5 hours.   45.  By way of second example, for the workweeks of March 22, 2014 to March 28,  2014 and March 29, 2014 to April 4, 2014, Plaintiff Yazer worked seventy hours each week for a  total of 140 hours during the pay cycle.  Accordingly, Defendants should have paid Yazer for  eighty hours at his straight time rate of $11.45, or $916, and for sixty hours at his overtime rate  of $17.18, or $1,030.80, for a total of $1,946.80.  However, for the entire pay period from March  22, 2014 to April 4, 2014, Defendants paid Plaintiff Yazer only $926.25, consisting of 77.22  hours at his straight hourly wage of $11.45 and 2.45 hours at his overtime hourly rate of $17.18.    14   46.  Additionally, Defendants regularly required and require Plaintiff Yazer to attend  staff meetings that last from two to four hours.  These meetings regularly take place outside of  Plaintiff Yazer’s work hours but Defendants do not compensate Yazer for his time.   47.  By way of example only, Defendants required Plaintiff Yazer to attend and  Plaintiff Yazer did attend staff meetings on February 3, 2016 and February 4, 2016.  These  meetings each lasted four hours and took place outside of Plaintiff’s scheduled work hours.   Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for his time at these meetings at any rate of pay.   48.  Additionally, on those occasions when Defendants required Plaintiff Yazer to  work and Plaintiff Yazer did work over ten hours in a shift, which was nearly every work day,  the Defendants did not compensate Yazer with an additional one hour’s pay at the minimum  wage rate.    49.  By way of example only, for the week of Saturday, January 23, 2016 through  Friday, January 29, 2016, Defendants required Plaintiff Yazer to work, and Yazer did work, a  spread of over ten hours on five separate dates as detailed above.  Defendants failed to pay  Plaintiff Yazer an additional hour of pay at the minimum wage for each of those days.   50.  On each occasion when they paid Plaintiff Yazer, Defendants intentionally failed  to provide Yazer with a wage statement that accurately listed, inter alia, his actual hours worked  for that week, or his straight and overtime rates of pay for all hours worked.   Luis R. Gonzalez   51.   In 2010, Defendant Bhai, on behalf of all Defendants, approved the hiring of  Plaintiff Gonzalez to work as a night auditor and front desk “supervisor” in the Hotel, where  Plaintiff Gonzalez remained employed until January 14, 2015.  15   52.  Plaintiff Gonzalez’s night auditing duties were the same as Plaintiff Yazer’s as  detailed above.     53.  As front desk “supervisor,” Plaintiff Gonzalez’s primary duties consisted of duties  similar to that of a front desk agent, with the addition of answering questions from other front  desk agents.  In this role, Plaintiff Gonzalez did not possess any authority to hire or fire  employees, recommend the hiring or firing of employees, set or adjust any employees’ rates of  pay and hours of work, or otherwise affect the terms and conditions of employment of front desk  agents.     54.  Throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff Gonzalez to work  between sixty and ninety hours per week, over the course of either five or six days per week.     55.  From the start of his employment in 2010 to approximately January 2014,  Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff Gonzalez a wage of $14.00 per hour and an overtime rate of  $21.00 per hour.  Sometime in January 2014, Defendants agreed to increase Plaintiff Gonzalez’s  hourly wage to $14.57 and his overtime hourly rate to $21.86.  Defendants paid Plaintiff  Gonzalez every two weeks by check.   56.  Despite that agreement as to his straight and overtime hourly rates, Defendants  paid Plaintiff Gonzalez for only some of his hours worked over forty at the statutorily-required  overtime rate, and more often than not, failed to pay Gonzalez for the vast majority of his hours  worked over forty at any rate.  Usually, Defendants paid Gonzalez for eighty hours at his  straight hourly rate (although sometimes less) and for a maximum of four hours at his overtime  premium (although many times they pay him for fewer than four hours of overtime), while  failing to pay Plaintiff Gonzalez for any remaining hours worked at any rate.        16   57.  By way of example only, during the week of Saturday, December 20, 2014  through Friday, December 26, 2014, Defendants required Plaintiff Gonzalez to work, and  Gonzalez did work, the following schedule, without permitting him to take a scheduled or  uninterrupted break:  Saturday, December 20, 2014: 3:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. the following day;  Sunday, December 21, 2014: 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following day;   Monday, December 22, 2014: 3:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. the following day;  Tuesday, December 23, 2014: off;  Wednesday, December 24, 2014: 11:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following day;  Thursday, December 25, 2014: 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 a.m. the following day;   Friday, December 26, 2014: 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following day.  Thus, adding up the hours for this one workweek, Plaintiff Gonzalez worked eighty hours.   Pursuant to his agreed upon rate, the Defendants should have paid Gonzalez for forty hours at his  straight time rate of $14.57, or $582.80, and for forty hours at his overtime rate of $21.86, or  $874.40, for a total of $1,457.20 just for this week.  Yet, instead, for the entire two-week pay  period, Defendants paid Gonzalez for eighty hours at his straight hourly wage and approximately  four hours at his overtime hourly rate, or a total of $1,253.04, which is $204.16 less than  Gonzalez should have received for just the one week during which he worked eighty hours.     58.  Additionally, Defendants regularly required Plaintiff Gonzalez to attend staff  meetings that lasted from two to four hours.  These meetings regularly took place outside of  Plaintiff Gonzalez’s work hours, but Defendants did not compensate Gonzalez for his time.    59.  By way of example only, Defendants required Plaintiff Gonzalez to attend and  Plaintiff Gonzalez did attend a staff meeting on or about December 27, 2014.  The meeting lasted  17  four hours and took place outside of his scheduled work hours.  Defendants failed to compensate  Gonzalez for his time at these meetings at any rate of pay.   60.  Additionally, on those occasions when Defendants required Plaintiff Gonzalez to  work and Plaintiff Gonzalez did work over ten hours in a shift, the Defendants did not  compensate Gonzalez with an additional one hour’s pay at the minimum wage rate.   61.  By way of example only, for the week of Saturday, December 20, 2014 through  Friday, December 26, 2014, Defendants required Plaintiff Gonzalez to work, and Gonzalez did  work, a spread of over ten hours on five separate dates as detailed above.  Defendants failed to  pay Plaintiff Gonzalez an additional hour of pay at the minimum wage for each of those days.     62.  On each occasion when they paid Plaintiff Gonzalez, Defendants intentionally  failed to provide Gonzalez with a wage statement that accurately listed, inter alia, his actual  hours worked for that week, or his straight and overtime rates of pay for all hours worked.    63.  Defendants treated Plaintiffs, FLSA Plaintiffs, and Rule 23 Plaintiffs in the  manner described above.   64.  Defendants acted in the manner described herein so as to maximize their profits  while minimizing their labor costs and overhead.   65.  Each hour that Plaintiffs worked was for Defendants’ benefit.  66.  Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every  allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.   67.  29 U.S.C. § 207(a) requires employers to compensate their employees at a rate not  less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked exceeding forty in  a workweek.    18   68.  As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the FLSA  while Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiffs are employees within the meaning of the FLSA.   69.  Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty hours per week, yet  Defendants failed to compensate them in accordance with the FLSA’s overtime provisions.    70.  Defendants willfully violated the FLSA.   71.  Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked  per week in excess of forty at the rate of one and one-half times their respective regular rates of  pay.    72.  Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiffs are also entitled to liquidated damages and  attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ violation of the FLSA’s overtime provisions.  73.  Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every  allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.    74.  NYLL § 160 and 12 NYCRR § 146-1.4 require employers to compensate their  employees at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for any hours  worked exceeding forty in a workweek.   75.  Defendants are employers within the meaning of the NYLL and the NYCRR,  while Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Plaintiffs are employees within the meaning of the NYLL and the  79.  Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every  allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.   80.  29 U.S.C. § 206(a) requires employers to compensate their employees at a rate not  less than the legally prescribed minimum wage for every hour worked.       81.  As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the FLSA  while Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiffs are employees within the meaning of the FLSA.   82.  Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiffs in accordance  with the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions.    83.  Defendants willfully violated the FLSA.   84.  At the least, Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiffs are entitled to pay at the minimum  wage for all hours worked per week.    85.  Plaintiffs and FLSA Plaintiffs are also entitled to liquidated damages and  attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions.  20  Unpaid Overtime Under the NYLL and the NYCRR   Unpaid Overtime Under the FLSA   Unpaid Minimum Wages Under the FLSA  