23.  In the First Cause of Action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207, Plaintiff seeks to  prosecute her FLSA claims as a collective action on behalf of all persons who are or were  formerly employed by Defendants as SMs, as well as other similarly situated current and former  employees working in comparable positions but different titles, at any time from three years  prior to the filing of this Collective and Class Action Complaint to the entry of judgment in this  case (the “Putative SM Collective”).    24.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly pay  overtime wages to Plaintiff and the members of the Putative SM Collective.     25.  There are numerous similarly situated current and former SMs who have not been  paid proper overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and who would benefit from the issuance  of court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it.  Thus, notice should be  sent to the Putative SM Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).    26.  Similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, readily identifiable, and  can be located though Defendants’ records.   27.  Plaintiff and the members of the Putative SM Collective, all of whom regularly  worked more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, were employed as SMs by Defendants.   28.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the Putative SM Collective  overtime compensation for the hours they worked over forty (40) in a workweek.   29.  Defendants failed to keep accurate records of all hours worked by Plaintiff and  the members of the Putative SM Collective.   31.  Defendants assigned the work that Plaintiff and the members of the Putative SM  Collective have performed, or Defendants were aware of the work they performed.    32.  The work performed by Plaintiff and the members of the Putative SM Collective  constitutes compensable work time under the FLSA and was not preliminary, postliminary or de  minimus.   34.  Defendants are aware, or should have been aware, that the FLSA requires them to  pay Plaintiff and the members of the Putative SM Collective an overtime premium for hours  worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.  35.  Plaintiff brings the Second and Third Causes of Action under Rule 23 of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of persons consisting of all persons who  have worked for Defendants as SMs, or in comparable positions with different titles, in the State  of New York (the “New York Class”) at any time between the date six years prior to the filing of  this Complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter (the “New York Class Period”).    36.  Excluded from the New York Class are Defendants’ legal representatives,  officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at any time during  the class period has had, a controlling interest in Defendants; the Judge(s) to whom this case is  assigned and any member of the Judge’s immediate family; and all persons who will submit  timely and otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the New York Class.   37.  The persons in the New York Class identified above are so numerous that joinder  of all members is impracticable.  The precise number of such persons is not known to Plaintiff,  and the facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the sole  control of Defendants.     38.  Upon information and belief, the size of the New York Class is at least 50  workers.   41.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the New York Class sought to be  represented.  Plaintiff and the other New York Class members work or have worked for  Defendants and have been subjected to their policy and pattern or practice of failing to pay  overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.  Defendants acted and  refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the New York Class, thereby making injunctive  and/or declaratory relief with respect to the New York Class appropriate.   42.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the New  York Class.  Plaintiff understands that, as a class representative, one assumes a fiduciary  responsibility to the New York Class to represent its interests fairly and adequately.  Plaintiff  recognizes that as a class representative, one must represent and consider the interests of the New  York Class just as one would represent and consider one’s own interests.  Plaintiff understands  that in decisions regarding the conduct of the litigation and its possible settlement, one must not  favor one’s own interests over those of the New York Class.  Plaintiff recognizes that any  resolution of a class action lawsuit, including any settlement or dismissal thereof, must be in the  best interests of the New York Class.  Plaintiff understands that in order to provide adequate  representation, one must remain informed of developments in the litigation, cooperate with class  counsel by providing them with information and any relevant documentary material in one’s  possession, and testify, if required, in a deposition and in trial.   43.  Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action  employment litigation.    45.  Defendants failed to provide legally required wage statements and wage notices  pursuant to the NYLL.   46.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(3).  47.  Consistent with Defendants’ policy, pattern or practice, Plaintiff and the members  of the Putative SM Collective and New York Class regularly worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages.      48.  All members of the Putative SM Collective and New York Class primarily  performed the same or substantially similar job duties.   50.  Plaintiff’s and the other SMs’ primary job duties did not include:  a. hiring  b. firing;  c. setting rates of pay;  d. scheduling; or  e. disciplining other employees.   51.  Plaintiff’s and the other SMs’ primary duties did not differ substantially from the  duties of non-exempt hourly-paid employees.   52.  Plaintiff’s and the other SMs did not exercise a meaningful degree of independent  discretion with respect to the exercise of their duties.    53.  Plaintiff’s and the other SMs’ primary duties were customer service related.   Customer service occupied the majority of the Plaintiff’s and the other SMs’ working hours.   54.  Pursuant to a centralized, company-wide policy, pattern, and practice, Defendants  classified all SMs as exempt from coverage of the overtime provisions of the FLSA, NYLL, and  applicable state laws.    56.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ unlawful conduct described in this  Collective and Class Action Complaint is pursuant to a corporate policy or practice which  minimizes labor costs by violating the FLSA and NYLL.    57.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime wages for work performed by the Putative  FLSA Collective and New York Class in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek was willful.    58.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated and consistent.  59.  Plaintiff and the members of the Putative SM Collective, reallege and incorporate  by reference paragraphs 1 to 58 as if they were set forth again herein.   60.  Defendants engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the FLSA,  as detailed in this Collective and Class Action Complaint.   61.  Plaintiff has consented in writing to be a party to this action, pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).     62.  A written consent form for Plaintiff is being filed with this Collective and Class  Action Complaint. (Ex. 1).     63.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the members of the Putative SM Collective  were engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of  29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   64.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. apply to  Defendants.   66.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff and the members of the Putative SM Collective  were employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203 (e) and 207(a).   67.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated members of the  Putative SM Collective the overtime wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA.   68.  Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, as described in this Collective and Class  Action Complaint, have been intentional and willful, and as such a three-year statute of  limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.   69.  Defendants have not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with  respect to the compensation of Plaintiff and other similarly situated members of the Putative SM  Collective.   70.  As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and all other  similarly situated members of the Putative SM Collective have suffered damages by being  denied overtime wages in accordance with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.   71.  As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and other similarly  situated members of the Putative SM Collective have been deprived of overtime compensation  and other wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recover such amounts,  liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other compensation pursuant  to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   73.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff and the members of the New York Class have been  employees and Defendants have been an employer within the meaning of the NYLL.  Plaintiff  and the members of the New York Class are covered by the NYLL.   74.  Defendants employed Plaintiff and the members of the New York Class as an  employer in New York.   75.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the New York Class wages  to which they are entitled under the NYLL.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the members  of the New York Class for overtime at a wage rate of one and one-half times their regular rates  of pay.     76.  Defendants failed to keep, make, preserve, maintain, and furnish accurate records  of time worked by Plaintiff and the New York Class members, by recording only forty (40)  hours of work per week rather than the actual number of hours worked.   77.  Due to Defendants’ intentional and willful violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and  the members of the New York Class are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid wages  (including overtime wages), reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, pre-judgment and  post-judgment interest, and such other relief as provided by law.  78.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 58 as if they were  set forth again herein.   80.  NYLL § 661 requires every employer to maintain, inter alia, true and accurate  records of hours worked by each employee covered by an hourly minimum wage rate, and the  wages paid to all employees.   81.  12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-2.6 requires every employer in miscellaneous industries to  establish, maintain and preserve for six years, weekly payroll records showing, inter alia, each  employee’s name, wage rate, number of hours worked daily and weekly, amount of gross and net  wages, deductions from gross wages, and any allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage.   82.  NYLL § 195(3) requires that every employer furnish each employee with a  statement with every payment listing gross wages, deductions and net wages, and upon request  of an employee, an explanation of the computation of wages.   83.  12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-2.7 requires every employer in miscellaneous industries to  furnish each employee a statement with every payment of wages listing hours worked, rates paid,  gross and net wages, deductions, and allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage.   84.  Defendants failed to comply with the notice and record keeping requirements of  NYLL §195(1) and 195(3), resulting in penalties under NYLL § 198(1)(b) and 198(1)(d) for  Plaintiff and the New York Class.   Fair Labor Standards Act: Unpaid Overtime Wages  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Putative SM Collective)   New York Labor Law  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the New York Class)   New York Labor Law Notice and Recordkeeping Claims  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the New York Class)  