39.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 216(b), Ms. Hirsch seeks to prosecute her  FLSA claim as a collective action on behalf of herself and others who currently work or formerly  worked as Salespersons for Infinite Beauty (the “Collective Action Members”) whom  Defendants did not pay the minimum wage during the three-year period immediately preceding  the filing of the original Complaint (the “FLSA Statutory Period”).   40.  Ms. Hirsch regularly performed work for Defendants for which Defendants  should have paid her at least the minimum wage.   42.  What Defendants did pay Ms. Hirsch in commissions did not amount to the  minimum wage for all hours Ms. Hirsch worked.   43.  As a result, Defendants failed to compensate Ms. Hirsch at the minimum wage  rate for all hours worked, in violation of the FLSA.   44.  Defendants subjected Ms. Hirsch and the Collective Action Members to the same  pay provision(s) in that Defendants failed to properly compensate either Ms. Hirsch or the  Collective Action Members for their hours worked.   45.  The Collective Action Members are thus owed unpaid wages under the FLSA for  the same reasons as Ms. Hirsch.  46.  Pursuant to Rule 23, Ms. Hirsch seeks to prosecute her NYLL minimum wage  claim as a class action on behalf of herself and others who currently work or formerly worked as  Salespersons for Infinite Beauty in the State of New York (the “Class Members”) at any time  during the six-year period immediately preceding the filing of the original Complaint (the  “NYLL Statutory Period”).   47.  While the exact number of Class Members is presently unknown, it is estimated  that there are at least 50 Class Members.   48.  The group of potential Class Members is so numerous as to make it impracticable  to bring them all before the Court, for which reason Ms. Hirsch initiates this litigation for all  persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23.   50.  Ms. Hirsch and her counsel do not anticipate any difficulties in the management  of this action as a class action.   51.  Ms. Hirsch is committed to vigorous prosecution of this action, will adequately  represent the Class Members in this action, and has retained competent counsel experienced in  class action litigation.   52.  Ms. Hirsch is a Class Member and has no interest antagonistic to or in conflict  with other Class Members.   53.  This action raises numerous questions of law and fact which are of common and  general interest to the Class Members, including:  a. whether Defendants employed the Class Members within the meaning of the  60.  On or about June 1, 2017, Ms. Hirsch began working as a Salesperson at Infinite  Beauty’s Upper East Side store, located at 1031 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10065 (the  “Store”).     61.  Infinite Beauty is an upscale beauty boutique that offers salon services and beauty  products to its wealthy clientele.   63.  As a Salesperson, Ms. Hirsch’s job primarily entailed selling Infinite Beauty’s  skincare products and facelift procedures to customers and soliciting potential customers by  standing outside the Store and offering samples of Infinite Beauty’s products.     64.  Ms. Hirsch also regularly performed various cleaning and maintenance tasks in  and around the Store, such as sweeping, watering plants, and the like.   65.  Ms. Hirsch reported directly to David Maor, the Store’s Manager, and to Ido  Sharir, one of the Store’s owners, throughout her employment.  I.  Wage-and-Hour Claims   66.  Ms. Hirsch was a non-exempt employee at Infinite Beauty throughout her  employment.   67.  Ms. Hirsch’s position at Infinite Beauty was inside sales.   68.  Infinite Beauty determined Ms. Hirsch’s schedule and controlled her work.   69.  Mr. Sharir set Ms. Hirsch’s work schedule, informed her of her weekly work  schedule, regularly required her to remain at the Store after the end of her shift to clean the Store  or attend mandatory employee meetings, and told her that Infinite Beauty would discipline her if  she did not attend mandatory meetings or arrive on time for scheduled shifts.     70.  Infinite Beauty set restrictions on Ms. Hirsch’s dress and behavior.   71.  For example, Infinite Beauty required Ms. Hirsch to adhere to a workplace dress  code, which consisted of all black outfits and prohibited jeans, and instructed her to sit in a  certain way while on Infinite Beauty’s premises.   72.  Infinite Beauty told Ms. Hirsch that she would be disciplined if she failed to  comply with these rules.     74.  As such, Ms. Hirsch was not an independent contractor.   75.  Ms. Hirsch worked two to four sales shifts at the Store each week and regularly  attended mandatory employee meetings outside of regular Store hours, for a total work week of  approximately 30 hours.     76.  Throughout Ms. Hirsch’s employment, however, Infinite Beauty never paid her  any salary or hourly wage for these hours worked.   77.  Moreover, Infinite Beauty failed to pay Ms. Hirsch the full amount of her  commissions in accordance with the commission structure to which Ms. Hirsch had agreed upon  her hire.   78.  As such, Infinite Beauty failed to pay Ms. Hirsch the minimum wage.     79.  Upon Ms. Hirsch’s hire, Mr. Sharir assigned an Infinite Beauty senior supervising  employee, known to Ms. Hirsch only as “Katrin,” to train Ms. Hirsch on the Store’s policies and  procedures, including compensation.     80.  Mr. Sharir and Katrin explained Infinite Beauty’s commission structure to Ms.  Hirsch as follows: 50 percent commission on the first $10,000 in sales, 60 percent commission  on the next $5,000, and 70 percent commission on all sales thereafter, plus bonuses upon  achieving certain sales numbers (e.g., a $250 bonus upon reaching $10,000).     81.  Another Infinite Beauty employee, known to Ms. Hirsch only as “Oren,”  informed Ms. Hirsch that Infinite Beauty would pay her via check, issued once per month on the  15th, which would represent all of her accrued commissions for the previous month.   83.  During Ms. Hirsch’s one-month tenure at the Store, she made approximately  $23,511.50 in sales.   84.  Accordingly, per the commission structure Infinite Beauty had described to Ms.  Hirsch upon her hire, Ms. Hirsch should have earned approximately $13,958.05 in commissions  on those sales, plus a $250 bonus for reaching $10,000 in sales and a $700 bonus for reaching  $20,000 in sales, for a total of $14,908.05 in commissions and bonuses.     85.  However, to date, Infinite Beauty has paid Ms. Hirsch only $1,534.59, in a single  check issued to her on or about July 15, 2017, the day after her employment at Infinite Beauty  ended.     86.  As a result, Infinite Beauty owes Ms. Hirsch approximately $13,373.46 in unpaid  commissions and bonuses.     87.  On or about July 18, 2017, Infinity Beauty recognized this debt, stating that  Infinite Beauty was “prepared to immediately transfer any balance due […] upon [Ms. Hirsch’s]  signing a general release […].”  II.  Disability Discrimination Claims   88.  Approximately four years ago, in and around 2013, Ms. Hirsch became disabled  after suffering a brain aneurysm.     90.  Due to her aneurysm and these related procedures and complications, Ms. Hirsch  now suffers from occasional and unexpected seizures and has limited ability to lift heavy objects  or stand for long periods of time.     91.  In order to manage her disabilities, Ms. Hirsch attends regular doctors’  appointments, takes the antiepileptic medication Keppra twice daily, and avoids situations which  might trigger seizures.   92.  For example, Ms. Hirsch’s seizure triggers include exhaustion and dehydration, so  Ms. Hirsch requires a certain amount of sleep each day to control her seizures and drinks water  consistently throughout the day.   93.  Ms. Hirsch informed Mr. Sharir of her disabilities both before and during Infinite  Beauty’s hiring process.     94.  Further, Ms. Hirsch made Infinite Beauty aware of her disabilities when she  requested time off work to attend doctors’ appointments and when she explained to Mr. Sharir  her need for adequate rest.     95.  Mr. Sharir not only denied Ms. Hirsch’s requested accommodation—occasional  time off work to attend doctors’ appointments—without explanation, but disparaged Ms.  Hirsch’s work ethic and commitment to her job because she had requested accommodations,  telling Ms. Hirsch, “You need 100 percent to succeed in this.”   96.  On or about July 13, 2017, Ms. Hirsch was working a sales shift, standing outside  the Store soliciting potential customers for Infinite Beauty.     98.  Afraid for her health, Ms. Hirsch went inside the Store immediately to go to the  water fountain downstairs—which, Infinite Beauty had informed her, was the only place where  employees were allowed to get water—so that she could take her antiepileptic medication.   Hostile Work Environment in Violation of the NYCHRL  (Against Defendants Infinite Beauty, Sharir, and Maor)  143.  Plaintiff, individually, hereby realleges and incorporates each and every allegation  contained in paragraphs 1 through 142 with the same force as though separately alleged herein.  144.  The NYCHRL prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee in  compensation or in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment on the basis of disability.  145.  Defendants Infinite Beauty, Sharir, and Maor violated the NYCHRL when they   subjected Ms. Hirsch to a hostile work environment based on her disability.  146.  As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants Infinite Beauty, Sharir, and  Maor’s disability discrimination, Ms. Hirsch has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial  damages, including, but not limited to, emotional distress and suffering, all in amounts to be  determined at trial.   147.  Defendants Infinite Beauty, Sharir, and Maor’s discriminatory treatment of Ms.  Hirsch involved a conscious disregard of Ms. Hirsch’s rights or conduct so reckless as to amount  to such disregard.  Accordingly, Ms. Hirsch is entitled to an award of punitive damages against  Defendants Infinite Beauty, Sharir, and Maor.  Unlawful Termination in Violation of the NYCHRL  (Against Defendants Infinite Beauty, Sharir, and Maor)  156.  Plaintiff, individually, hereby realleges and incorporates each and every allegation  contained in paragraphs 1 through 155 with the same force as though separately alleged herein.  157.  The NYCHRL prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee in  compensation or in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment on the basis of disability.  158.  Defendants Infinite Beauty, Sharir, and Maor violated the NYCHRL when they  terminated Ms. Hirsch’s employment based on her disability.  159.  As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants Infinite Beauty, Sharir, and  Maor’s disability discrimination, Ms. Hirsch has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial  damages, including, but not limited to, emotional distress and suffering, all in amounts to be  determined at trial.   160.  Defendants Infinite Beauty, Sharir, and Maor’s discriminatory treatment of Ms.  Hirsch involved a conscious disregard of Ms. Hirsch’s rights or conduct so reckless as to amount  to such disregard.  Accordingly, Ms. Hirsch is entitled to an award of punitive damages against  Defendants Infinite Beauty, Sharir, and Maor. 