21.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207, Plaintiff brings his First Cause of Action as a  collective action under the FLSA on behalf of himself and the following collective:   All persons employed by Defendants at any time since February  10, 2013 and through the entry of judgment in this case (the  “Collective Action Period”) who worked as electricians and  helpers (the “Collective Action Members”).   22.  A collective action is appropriate in this circumstance because Plaintiff and the  Collective Action members are similarly situated, in that they were all subjected to Defendants’  illegal policies, including, but not limited to, failing to pay overtime premiums for work  performed in excess of forty (40) hours each week. As a result of this policy, Plaintiff and the  Collective Action Members did not receive the legally-required overtime premium payments for  all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.   23.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members have substantially similar job duties  and are paid pursuant to a similar, if not the same, payment structure.  24.  Pursuant to the NYLL and the New York common law, Plaintiff brings his  Second through Sixth Causes of Action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on  behalf of himself and the following class:  All persons employed by Defendants at any time since February  10, 2010 and through the entry of judgment in this case (the  “Unpaid Wages Class Period”) who worked as electricians and  helpers (the “Unpaid Wages Class Members”).   25.  The Unpaid Wages Class Members are readily ascertainable. The number and  identity of the Unpaid Wages Class Members are determinable from the records of Defendants.   6  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 Rule 23.   26.  The Unpaid Wages Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  Although the precise number of Unpaid Wages Class Members is unknown to  Plaintiff, the facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the  sole control of Defendants.    27.  Upon information and belief, there are in excess of forty (40) Class Members.   28.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Unpaid Wages Class Members  and such questions predominate over any questions solely affecting individual Unpaid Wages  Class Members. Such common questions will determine Defendants’ liability to all (or nearly  all) Unpaid Wages Class Members. These common questions include:   a. whether Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages Class Members within  the meaning of the NYLL;  b. whether Defendants failed to keep true and accurate time records for all hours worked  by Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages Class Members;  c. whether Defendants failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages  Class Members for all hours worked over forty (40) in a given week;   d. whether Defendants breached contracts with local, state and/or federal governmental  entities by failing to pay Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages Class Members, who were  third-party beneficiaries of such contracts, at New York State and/or New York City  prevailing wage rates;   e. whether Defendants failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages  Class Members overtime hours at the prevailing wage overtime rates for all hours   7  worked on prevailing wage projects in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek or  eight (8) hours per day;   f. whether Defendants failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages  Class Members supplemental benefits on prevailing wage jobs as required by the  New York City and New York State prevailing wage schedules;   g. whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by failing to pay Plaintiff and the Unpaid  Wages Class Members at prevailing wage rates on prevailing wage jobs;   h. whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages Class Members  with proper wage notices and wage statements;  i. whether Defendants’ failure to properly pay Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages Class  Members lacked a good faith basis; and  j. whether Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not  limited to compensatory damages, liquidated damages, interest, costs and  disbursements and attorneys’ fees.    29.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Unpaid Wages Class Members’ claims.  Plaintiff, like all Unpaid Wages Class Members, is an electrician who worked for Defendants  pursuant to their corporate policies. Plaintiff, like all Unpaid Wages Class Members, was, inter  alia, not paid overtime wages for all hours worked over forty (40) in a given workweek; not paid  prevailing wages, supplemental benefits or daily/weekly overtime prevailing wages for work  performed on NYCHA housing developments; and was not provided with proper wage notice  and wage statements.  If Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the Class claims enumerated in  this Complaint, they are also liable to all Unpaid Wages Class Members.   30.  The Plaintiff and his Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Class. There   8  are no conflicts between Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages Class Members, and the Plaintiff brings  this lawsuit out of a desire to help all Unpaid Wages Class Members, not merely out of a desire  to recover his own damages.    31.  Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced class action litigators who are well-prepared to  represent the interests of the Unpaid Wages Class Members.    32.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation. Defendants are sophisticated parties with substantial resources.  The individual plaintiff lacks the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal  court against the Corporate Defendant. The individual members of the Class have no interest or  capacity to bring separate actions; Plaintiff is unaware of any other litigation concerning this  controversy; it is desirable to concentrate the litigation in one case; and there are no likely  difficulties that will arise in managing the class action.  The Tax Fraud Class   33.  Pursuant to 26 U.S. Code § 7434, Plaintiff Lythcott brings his Seventh cause of  action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and the  following Class:  All persons employed by Defendants from February 10, 2010  through the entry of judgment in this action (the “Tax Fraud Class  Period”) who received incorrect Form W2s from Defendants and  all other employees for whom Defendants filed fraudulent tax  information (the “Tax Fraud Class Members”).   34.  The Tax Fraud Class Members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity  of the Tax Fraud Class Members are determinable from the records of Defendants.  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 Federal Rule of Civil   9  Procedure 23.   35.  The Tax Fraud Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.   36.  Upon information and belief, there are well in excess of forty (40) Tax Fraud  Class Members.   37.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Tax Fraud Class Members and  such questions predominate over any questions solely affecting individual Tax Fraud Class  Members. Such common questions will determine Defendants’ liability to all (or nearly all) Tax  Fraud Class Members. These common questions include:  a. whether Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Tax Fraud Class Members;  b. whether Defendants failed to keep true and accurate records for all wages paid and  tax withholdings taken by Defendants to Plaintiff and the Tax Fraud Class Members;  c. whether Defendants failed to issue the tax authorities accurate information reports  which included all wages paid and tax withholdings taken by Defendants to Plaintiff  and the Tax Fraud Class Members for the relevant tax year; and  d. whether Defendants’ failure to file accurate information returns was done willfully  and with the intent to avoid certain tax obligations; and  e. whether Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not  limited to statutory damages, actual damages, interest, costs and disbursements and  attorneys’ fees.   38.  The answer to these questions would drive resolution of the litigation. If a judge  and/or jury agrees with Plaintiff on these issues, Defendants would be liable to all Tax Fraud  Class Members for their tax fraud violations.   10   39.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Tax Fraud Class Members’ claims. Plaintiff  Lythcott, like all Tax Fraud Class Members, is an electrical employee of Defendants who worked  for Defendants pursuant to their corporate policies.  Plaintiff Lythcott, like all Tax Fraud Class  Members, was, inter alia, issued fraudulent tax documents including Form W2s which did not  reflect all of his wages paid and/or tax withholdings taken by Defendants. If Defendants are  liable to Plaintiff Lythcott for the claims enumerated in this Complaint, they are also liable to all  Tax Fraud Class Members.   40.  Plaintiff and his Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Class. There are  no conflicts between Plaintiff Lythcott and the Tax Fraud Class Members, and Plaintiff brings  this lawsuit out of a desire to help all Tax Fraud Class Members, not merely out of a desire to  recover his own damages.   41.  Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced class action litigators who are well-prepared to  represent the interests of the Tax Fraud Class Members.   42.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation.     43.  Defendants are sophisticated parties with substantial resources. The individual  plaintiff lacks the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against  corporate defendants.  The individual members of the Class have no interest or capacity to bring  separate actions; Plaintiff is unaware of any other litigation concerning this controversy; it is  desirable to concentrate the litigation in one case; and there are no likely difficulties that will  arise in managing the class action.   11  44.  At all relevant times, Defendant Lintech has been in the electrical contracting  business. Upon information and belief, Defendants currently own, operate and manage an  electrical contracting company located at 3006 Tilden Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11226.   45.  According to the website for Lintech, “Lintech is a MNC Company with head  quarters at Brooklyn, USA which created many firsts in Brooklyn in terms of Solar Energy  Management System & other electrical & mechanical services.…Over the years our engineers  and technicians have encountered many different types of electrical, plumbing, solar plant,  mechanical & automobile installation. …Whether you’re building out new space, renovating an  existing facility, or are in need of building repairs, our staff of skilled professionals can complete  the projects to your complete satisfaction.” Lintech, according to the web site, “serve[s] many  industries, including Automotive, Building Automation, Home Technologies, Medical Devices,  Power Tools and Lawn & Garden” and focuses its core business on “project management, in  house Voltora electrical sign, electrical installation, planned maintenance, energy saving surveys  & reporting, inspection testing of all electrical systems and carbon reduction planning.”  (http://www.lintechelectric.com)   46.  Upon information and belief, “Derrick” and “Clive” were supervisors of the  Corporate Defendant. Upon information and belief, Defendant Tudor is in constant contact with  Derrick, Clive and other supervisors to ensure that the company is operating in accordance with  their standards and policies, including the unlawful policies complained of herein.  B.   The Public Works Contracts   47.  Upon information and belief, Defendants have entered into certain contracts, as   12  either a subcontractor or prime contractor, with public agencies to provide electrical work on  government projects within the City of New York, including but not limited to certain NYCHA  developments, or with prime contractors not currently known, to furnish labor, material and  equipment to perform work on the Public Works Projects (the “Public Works Contracts”).   48.  Upon information and belief, the Public Works Contracts obligated Defendants to  pay Plaintiff and the Class Members at or above the local prevailing wage rates, including any  required supplemental benefits and overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per week, eight (8) hours per day, hours worked on Saturday and Sunday and hours  worked during the evening. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff proper prevailing wage rates,  supplemental benefits and overtime premiums was a corporate policy that also applied to all of  Defendants’ other similarly situated employees.   49.  As employees of Defendants who were assigned to work on Defendants’ publicly- financed projects, Plaintiff and the Class Members were intended third-party beneficiaries of  Defendants’ Public Works Contracts.    50.  As required by law, a schedule containing the prevailing rates of wages and  supplemental benefits (“prevailing wage schedules”) to be paid to the plaintiff Class should have  been annexed to and formed a part of the Public Works Contracts. If not annexed to the Public  Works Contracts, these schedules were expressly or impliedly incorporated into the contracts as  a matter of law and/or public policy.   51.  The promise to pay and ensure payment of the prevailing wage and supplemental  benefit rate stated in the Public Works Contracts was made for the benefit of all workers  furnishing labor on the sites of the Public Works Projects and, as such, the workers furnishing  labor on the sites of the Public Works Projects are the beneficiaries of that promise and the   13  contracts entered into between Defendants and government agencies.    52.  Upon information and belief, in furtherance of the Public Works Contracts  entered into by Defendants, Plaintiff and other members of the putative Class performed various  electrical tasks, including, but not limited to, running power from basements to sidewalk bridges,  lights and elevators, setting and connecting pipes, pulling and connecting wires, boarding and  running power from panel boxes, installing breakers, connectors and fixtures, pulling wires  through conduits and setting up scaffolding for repairs and asbestos removal.    53.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff should have been paid at the prevailing rate  of wages (including supplemental benefits) of:  a. July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010:  $47.00 plus $39.24 in supplemental benefits per  hour;1   b. July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011:  $49.00 plus $40.40 in supplemental benefits per  hour;  c. July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012:  $49.00 plus $40.16 in supplemental benefits per  hour;  d. July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013:  $49.00 plus $40.16 in supplemental benefits per  hour;  e. July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014:  $52.00 plus $46.13 in supplemental benefits per  hour;  f. July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015:  $53.00 plus $47.54 in supplemental benefits per  hour;  1 The rates listed below are those of an “Electrician ‘A’” from the Office of the Comptroller, City  of New York’s § 220 Prevailing Wage Schedules.    14  g. July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016: $54.00 plus $50.03 in supplemental benefits per  hour.  C.  Plaintiff’s Work for Defendants   54.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff performed electrical services for Defendants in  New York City.  Throughout his employment period, Plaintiff performed work on numerous  NYCHA developments pursuant to a three (3) year contract between NYCHA and Lintech.   55.  Plaintiff Lythcott worked for Defendants as a helper for approximately one (1)  month in or around September 2012 and an electrician from in or around mid-May 2015 through  in or around late October 2015 (the “Lythcott Employment Period”).    56.  As an electrician, Plaintiff Lythcott performed electrical work on numerous  NYCHA developments, including LaGuardia Houses, Roosevelt Houses, Sumner Houses,  Mariner’s Harbor Houses, South Beach Houses, Marcy Houses, Isaacs Houses and  Pennsylvania-Wortman Houses, from in or around May 2015 through in or around October  2015. As a helper, Lythcott primarily performed work on private homes.   57.  As a helper, Plaintiff Lythcott’s duties included breaking concrete and sidewalks,  digging holes to run pipes, pulling wires and screwing panel boxes into the walls so that Con  Edison could run lines and install meters in front of houses. As an electrician, Plaintiff Lythcott’s  duties included running power from basements to sidewalk bridges, lights and elevators, setting  and connecting pipes, pulling and connecting wires, boarding and running power from panel  boxes, installing breakers, connectors and fixtures, pulling wires through conduits and setting up  scaffolding for repairs and asbestos removal.    58.  For approximately one (1) month in or around September 2012, when Plaintiff  Lythcott worked as a helper, he typically worked four to five (4-5) days per week, Monday   15  through Friday, from between approximately 8:00 am and 8:30 am to between approximately  5:30 pm and 6:00 pm, for a total of approximately forty-five (45) hours per week.    59.  From in or around May 2015 through in or around October 2015, when he worked  as an electrician, Plaintiff Lythcott typically worked five (5) days per week, Monday through  Friday, from between approximately 7:00 am and 8:00 to between approximately 5:00 pm and  6:00 pm, and sometimes later, for a total of approximately forty-six to forty-eight (46-48) hours  per week. Although he was scheduled to work from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm, Plaintiff Lythcott was  required to remain on the job site until the work was finished, which was typically one to two (1- 2) hours past his scheduled shift.   60.  For approximately one (1) month in or around September 2012, when Plaintiff  Lythcott worked as a helper, he typically received fifty dollars ($50.00) per day for his work,  after taxes. For approximately two (2) weeks in or around May 2015, Plaintiff Lythcott earned  one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) per day, after taxes. From in or around June 2015  through in or around October 2015, Plaintiff Lythcott received two hundred dollars ($200.00) per  day, after taxes. On the two (2) occasions that Plaintiff Lythcott received a paystub, he observed  that his “hourly rate” was thirty-five dollars and eighty-five cents ($35.85). Prior to receiving  paystubs that showed an hourly rate, Lythcott had been informed by his supervisors that he  would receive either one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) or two hundred dollars ($200.00)  per day for his work, not an hourly-based pay.   61.  Throughout the Lythcott Employment Period, Plaintiff Lythcott did not receive  benefits of any kind, much less correct supplemental benefits for his work on NYCHA housing  developments, nor was he paid the prevailing wage in effect at that time.   62.  When he worked as a helper, Plaintiff Lythcott was paid entirely in cash. He   16  typically received his cash payments from “Clive,” a Lintech supervisor. From in or around May  2015 through in or around October 2015, Plaintiff Lythcott received his wages entirely in check.  Plaintiff Lythcott typically picked up his checks at Lintech’s main office located at 3006 Tilden  Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11226. The checks that Plaintiff Lythcott received often contained the  names of the NYCHA development(s) on which he had worked during the relevant pay period.   63.  Throughout his employment period, Plaintiff Lythcott received a flat day rate that  did not vary with the number of hours that he worked. Thus, although he typically worked well  in excess of forty (40) hours per week, Plaintiff Lythcott did not receive overtime premiums of  one and one-half (1.5) times his hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty (40).   64.  On only two (2) occasions, which were the last two (2) weeks of his employment  period, Plaintiff Lythcott received a paystub showing his hourly rate. Despite the fact that  Plaintiff Lythcott worked in excess of forty (40) hours for both weeks, the paystubs showed  payment for only forty (40) hours per week. At no point prior to the last two (2) weeks of his  employment did Plaintiff Lythcott receive a written notification of his regular hourly rate, a  paystub showing the number of hours that he worked or any other document showing his regular  hourly rate, his overtime rate or his hours worked.   65.  When Plaintiff Lythcott worked as a helper, Clive kept track of the hours that  Plaintiff Lythcott and his crewmembers worked and reported this information to the main office.  From in or around May 2015 through in or around October 2015, Defendants kept track of the  hours that Lythcott worked by requiring him to record his arrival and departure times on a  NYCHA sign-in sheet specifically for electricians on the job site, signed by a Lintech supervisor.  Although he often signed in and out exactly when he arrived and left the job site, he did not  receive proper overtime premiums when he worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty   17  (40) hours per week.   66.  When employees signed in and out, supervisors “Derrick” and “Clive” would  frequently instruct them not to write down their overtime hours on the sign-in sheet.   67.  On at least two (2) occasions in 2015, Plaintiff Lythcott observed investigators on  NYCHA job sites. On one occasion, a supervisor, “Clive,” instructed Lythcott to ignore any  questions about his wages or inform investigators that he made one thousand five hundred  dollars ($1,500.00) per week “after tax.” On another occasion, when investigators arrived on the  job site, “Derrick” instructed Plaintiff Lythcott and several of his coworkers not to speak to them  and to move to a secluded area that was out of the investigators’ line of sight, despite the fact that  they had been assigned to do bridging work and take down lamps at the front of the building.   68.  On at least one occasion, Plaintiff Lythcott overheard “Derrick” inform a  coworker that the company “doesn’t pay overtime, just flat pay” when a coworker asked why he  was not receiving proper overtime pay.   69.  When Plaintiff Lythcott asked Derrick why he was not receiving the applicable  prevailing wage, Derrick replied that it was “not on him” and urged him to ask Defendant Tudor.  Approximately two (2) or three (3) days after he asked about his wages, Derrick informed  Plaintiff Lythcott that work was “slowing down” and that he was not needed on the job site.  However, Lintech was still active on multiple projects and called another electrician back to  work shortly after Lythcott was terminated.   70.  Although Plaintiff Lythcott was generally permitted to take a thirty (30) minute  break, he was occasionally denied a break because he was required to perform other tasks.   71.  In January 2016, Plaintiff Lythcott received a Form W2 from Defendants for his  earnings from working for Defendants in 2015. The Form W2 showed that his total federal   18  income taxes withheld for 2015 was thirty-two dollars and ninety-one cents ($32.91) despite the  fact that Lythcott’s Federal Income Tax withholdings on the two (2) paystubs that he received,   were two hundred and forty-seven dollars and thirty-two cents ($247.32) and fifty dollars and  ninety-three cents ($50.93), respectively. While Defendants claimed to have been withholding  taxes from Plaintiff’s wages each week, and in fact told Plaintiff that the wages he was being  paid was “after taxes,” the Form W2 reflects an incorrect amount of federal income taxes  withheld by the Defendants.    72.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ filing of false information returns for  Plaintiff is a corporate policy of Defendants’ which applied to all of their employees.   73.  Plaintiff Lythcott has spoken to Defendants’ other employees on various job sites,  who were also not paid overtime premiums for hours in excess of forty (40) each workweek,  who also did not receive correct prevailing wages, and who received Form W2s which reflected  an incorrect amount of federal taxes withheld.   74.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime premiums of one and one-half (1.5) times the  regularly hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week was a corporate policy  that applied to all electricians employed by Defendants.     75.  Upon information and belief, during the period of time for which Plaintiff and the  members of the putative Class performed work on NYCHA housing developments, Defendants  failed to ensure payment of the correct prevailing rate of wages and supplemental benefits,  including overtime pay, to which Plaintiff and other members of the putative Class were entitled.   76.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and their other similarly situated employees  with proper wage notices at the time of hire or on February 1 of each year or proper wage  statement(s) with every payment of wages or accurate wage statements pursuant to the NYLL.     19  77.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Collective Action Members, repeats and  realleges each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and  effect as though fully set forth herein.   78.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.,  and the supporting federal regulations, apply to Defendants and protect Plaintiff and the  Collective Action Members.     79.  Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members at the  correct overtime wages for all of the hours they worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a  workweek.     80.  As a result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Collective  Action Members have been deprived of overtime compensation and other wages in amounts to  be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages,  prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§  201 et seq.   81.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as described in this Class and Collective Action  Complaint, has been willful and intentional.  Defendants were aware or should have been aware  that the practices described in this Class and Collective Action Complaint were unlawful.   Defendants have not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with respect to the  compensation of Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members.    82.  Because Defendants’ violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year  statute of limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.    20  83.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Unpaid Wage Class Members, repeats and  realleges each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and  effect as though fully set forth herein.   84.  The overtime wage provisions of Article 19 of the NYLL and its supporting  regulations apply to Defendants, and protect Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class Members.    85.  Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class Members the  proper overtime wages to which they are entitled under the NYLL and the supporting New York  State Department of Labor Regulations.    86.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class Members one and  one-half (1.5) times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per  workweek.    87.  Through its knowing or intentional failure to pay Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage  Class Members overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week, Defendants  have willfully violated the NYLL, Article 19, §§ 650 et seq., and the supporting New York State  Department of Labor regulations.    88.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class  Members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime wages, liquidated  damages as provided for by the NYLL, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, and  pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.    21  89.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Unpaid Wage Class Members, repeats and  realleges each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and  effect as though fully set forth herein.    90.  Upon information and belief, the Public Works Contracts entered into by  Defendants contained schedules of the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits to be  paid to Plaintiff and the employees performing work pursuant to such contracts.   91.  Those prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits were made part of the  Public Works Contracts for the benefit of the Plaintiff and the other employees performing work  pursuant to such contracts. In the event that the contracts or agreements entered into failed to  explicitly contain prevailing wage schedules, the prevailing wage requirements were  supplemented as a matter of law, requiring Defendants to pay the Plaintiff and Unpaid Wage  Class Members prevailing wages, daily/weekly overtime and supplemental benefits for all work  performed.   92.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff at the correct prevailing wage rates for straight  time, overtime, and supplemental benefits for work performed on Public Works Projects  constituted a material breach of the contracts entered into directly or indirectly between  Defendants and certain public entities.   93.  As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff at prevailing wage rates, he is  entitled to relief from Defendants for breach of contract under New York common law of  contracts.   22  94.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Unpaid Wage Class Members, repeats and  realleges each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and  effect as though fully set forth herein.   95.  Based on Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class  Members the appropriate prevailing wage rates, Defendants were unjustly enriched at the  expense of Plaintiff.   96.  Equity and good conscience require that Defendants pay restitution to Plaintiff.   97.  Upon information and belief, when Defendants entered into the contract, they  agreed to pay the required prevailing wages, overtime, shift-differential and holiday premiums,  and supplemental benefit rates of pay to Plaintiff and other employees who performed work  pursuant to the contracts.   98.  Plaintiff provided valuable services to Defendants performing prevailing wage  jobs for which Plaintiff expected compensation.  Defendants knowingly accepted such services  yet failed to pay Plaintiff the reasonable value of such services as defined by the New York State  and New York City prevailing wage schedules.   99.  As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff at prevailing wage rates on  prevailing wage jobs and Defendants’ corresponding unjust enrichment, Plaintiff is entitled to  relief from Defendants under New York’s common law of unjust enrichment.  100.  As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff the reasonable value of the  valuable services they rendered, Plaintiff is entitled to relief from Defendants under New York’s  common law of quantum meruit.    23  A.  Defendants’ Company   BREACH OF CONTRACT  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class Members)   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – UNPAID OVERTIME  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members)   FRAUDULENT FILING OF INFORMATION RETURNS  (On Behalf Of Plaintiff and the Tax Fraud Class Members)  108.  Plaintiff Lythcott, on behalf of himself and the Tax Fraud Class Members, repeats  and realleges each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force  and effect as though fully set forth herein.  109.  Defendants filed fraudulent information returns on behalf of Plaintiff Lythcott and  the Tax Fraud Class Members in violation of 26 U.S. Code § 7434 by failing to accurately report  all taxes withheld from the Plaintiff’s wages by Defendants during the relevant tax year.   25  110.  Defendants willfully filed these fraudulent information returns for Plaintiff  Lythcott and the Tax Fraud Class Members to avoid certain tax obligations.  111.  For Defendants’ willful fraudulent filings, Plaintiff Lythcott and the Tax Fraud  Class Members are entitled to damages pursuant to 26 U.S. Code § 7434(b).  NEW YORK LABOR LAW – UNPAID OVERTIME  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW –WAGE NOTICE VIOLATIONS  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class Members)  101.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Unpaid Wage Class Members, repeats and  realleges each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and  effect as though fully set forth herein.   102.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed and/or continue to employ Plaintiff  and each Unpaid Wage Class Member within the meaning of the NYLL, §§ 2 and 651.  103.  Defendants have willfully failed to supply Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class  Members notice as required by Article 6, § 195, on the date of hire and February 1 of each year,  in English or in the language identified by Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class Members as their  primary language, containing Plaintiff’s and Unpaid Wage Class Members’ rate or rates of pay  and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other;  hourly rate or rates of pay and overtime rate or rates of pay if applicable; the regular pay day  designated by the employer in accordance with NYLL, Article 6, § 191; the name of the  employer; the physical address of the employer’s main office or principal place of business, and  a mailing address if different; the telephone number of the employer; plus such other information  as the commissioner deems material and necessary.   104.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class  Members are entitled to recover from Defendants fifty dollars ($50.00) per employee for each  workweek that the violations occurred or continue to occur, or a total of twenty-five hundred  dollars ($2,500.00) per employee, as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190 et seq., reasonable  attorneys’ fees, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and declaratory  relief.   24  NEW YORK LABOR LAW – WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class Members)  105.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Unpaid Wage Class Members, repeats and  realleges each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and  effect as though fully set forth herein.  106.  Defendants have willfully failed to supply Plaintiff and Unpaid Wage Class  Members with an accurate statement of wages as required by NYLL, Article 6, § 195, containing  Plaintiff’s overtime rate or rates of pay if applicable; and an accurate count of the number of  hours worked, including overtime hours worked if applicable.   107.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class  Members are entitled to recover from Defendants one hundred dollars ($100.00) per employee  for each workweek that the violations occurred or continue to occur, or a total of twenty-five  hundred dollars ($2,500) per employee, as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190 et seq.,  liquidated damages as provided for by the NYLL, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, pre-judgment  and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and declaratory relief.  The Unpaid Wages Class   UNJUST ENRICHMENT & QUANTUM MERUIT  (Pled In The Alternative)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wage Class Members)  