14.  Plaintiffs bring the First Cause of Action as a collective action pursuant to   §216(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b) on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people  (the “Collective”), which shall include:    All persons who work or worked for Defendants as Retention Specialists from  April 27, 2012 through the date the Court orders notice to be sent in accordance  with §216(b) of the FLSA (the “FLSA Class Period”).     15.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly   compensate Plaintiffs and the Collective and for making unlawful deductions from the pay of  Plaintiffs and the Collective.  There are likely hundreds or thousands of similarly situated current  and former employees of Defendants who have been underpaid in violation of the FLSA and  who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the  opportunity to join the present lawsuit.  Those similarly situated employees are known to  Defendants, are readily identifiable, and can be located through Defendants’ records that  Defendants are required to create and maintain under applicable federal and state law.  Notice  should be sent to the Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).    7  16.  Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) on  behalf of the following class of Retention Specialists (the “Class”):  All persons in the State of New York who work or worked for Defendant as  Retention Specialists from April 27, 2009 through the date a judgment is entered  in this action.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants, and any corporations,  partnerships or other entities affiliated with Defendants.   17.  The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be  impracticable.  Plaintiff estimates that there are dozens of members of the Class.   18.  Questions of law and fact are common to all the members of the Class that  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including:  a.  Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class for all hours  worked and/or at overtime rates for hours worked over 40 per workweek;   b.  Whether Defendants made unlawful deductions from the pay of Plaintiffs  and the Class;   c.  Whether Plaintiffs’ pay stubs from Defendants complied with the  requirements of the NYLL;   d.  Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the NYLL;  e.  Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful and/or not in good faith;  f.  Whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to liquidated damages; and  g.  The amount by which Plaintiffs and the Class were damaged.    19.  The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the Class.   Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendants have no defenses  unique to Plaintiffs.  8   20.  Plaintiffs will protect the interests of the Class fairly and adequately, and  Plaintiffs have retained attorneys experienced in class action litigation.   21.  A class action is superior to all other available methods for this controversy  because:  a.  The prosecution of separate actions by the members of the Class would  create a risk of 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  adjudications, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;  b.  The prosecution of separate actions by the members of the Class would  create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of  the Class, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants;  c.  Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Class; and questions of law and fact common to members of the Class predominate over any  questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.  d.  Retention Specialists who are currently employed by Defendants are likely  to fear retaliation and/or the loss of their employment, and thus will likely not commence their  own actions or assert FLSA claims as part of the Collective.   22.  Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants within the last three years, as stated  above.  Plaintiffs and similarly situated Retention Specialists were employed by Defendants to  attempt to collect on past due invoices from customers, and, if unsuccessful, to disconnect and  retrieve the broadband and/or TV equipment from customers’ homes.  9   23.  Throughout their employment, in most or all weeks, Plaintiffs worked more than  40 hours per week.  Plaintiffs worked as many as 70 hours per week.     24.  Throughout their employment, Plaintiffs were not paid for all hours worked,  including hours worked over 40 in most or all work weeks.  Rather, Defendants required  Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees to punch out when they had worked approximately  40 hours, and continue to work off the clock for the remainder of their hours.  Defendants also  required Plaintiffs to perform administrative work off the clock, regardless of whether they had  worked 40 hours for the week.       25.  Defendants required Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees to pay for various  expenses of Defendants’ businesses, including the cost of “personal” vehicles that were used  during work hours to perform work for Defendants.  Among other things these vehicles were  used to travel to customers’ homes to disconnect the equipment of customers who were  delinquent with payments and whose accounts could not be collected upon. Defendants did not  reimburse Plaintiffs and similarly situated Retention Specialists for the cost of gasoline,  insurance, tolls, and maintenance.  Defendants required Plaintiffs and similarly situated  Retention Specialists to own a vehicle; several of the Plaintiffs herein were required to purchase  a vehicle in order to work for Defendants.  Plaintiffs and similarly situated retention specialists  were not reimbursed for any of the costs associated with their vehicles, despite the fact that these  vehicles were used and/or purchased to conduct Defendants’ business.     26.  Defendants failed to provide to Plaintiffs proper pay statements as required by  NYLL §195(3).  The pay statements do not list the name and address of RCH Cable, who is the  Retention Specialists’ employer, do not accurately state the rate of pay and whether the  Retention Specialists are paid by the hour or piece, the telephone number of the employer, the  10  physical address of the employer’s office or principal place of business, the overtime rates of  pay, the number of regular hours worked, and the number of overtime hours worked.       27.  Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs as if they were  fully set forth herein.   28.  During the FLSA Class Period, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were  “employees” of Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(e) and (g).     29.  At all relevant times, Defendants have been an “employer” engaged in interstate  “commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203.      30.  At all relevant times, Defendants’ business has had annual gross revenues in  excess of $500,000.     31.  Plaintiffs consent in writing to be parties to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  §216(b).  Plaintiffs’ written consents are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by  reference.     32.  Defendants were required to properly pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated  all wages due including applicable overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in  a workweek.       33.  During the FLSA Class Period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the  Collective all wages due including overtime wages of not less than one and one-half times the  regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek to which they were  entitled under the FSLA, 29 U.S.C. §207.    11   34.  Defendants’ violation of the overtime requirements of the FLSA was part of their  regular business practice and constituted a pattern, practice, and/or policy.     35.  Defendants also required Plaintiffs and the Collective to purchase vehicles and  pay the related expenses, including but not limited to gasoline, insurance, tolls, and maintenance,  to perform their work for Defendants.  Defendants did not reimburse Plaintiffs and the Collective  for any of these expenses, thus causing the wages of Plaintiffs and the Collective to amount to  less than the minimum wage, in violation of the FLSA.    36.  As a result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs and others similarly  situated have suffered damages by being denied overtime wages in accordance with the FLSA in  amounts to be determined at trial, and by the deductions from their wages, and are entitled to  recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages in an amount equal to their unpaid wages,  prejudgment and post judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and punitive damages  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).     37.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as described above, was willful and intentional  and/or was not in good faith.  Defendants knew or should have known that the practices  complained of herein were unlawful.  Defendants knew that Plaintiffs and others similarly  situated routinely worked in excess of forty hours per week and/or paid for the costs associated  with Defendants’ business, and that Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not paid for all  hours worked and/or reimbursed for their expenditures.    38.  Defendants have not made a good faith effort to comply with the FSLA with  respect to the compensation of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.   39.  Because Defendants’ violations of the FSLA have been willful, a three-year  statute of limitations applies, pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §255(a).  12   40.  Plaintiffs and the Collective seek to enjoin Defendants from their continuing  violations of 29 U.S.C. §207.    41.  Plaintiffs  incorporate and re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs as if they were  fully set forth herein.   42.  Plaintiffs and the Class were employees of Defendants within the meaning of   NYLL, Article 6, §190(2), and supporting New York regulations.       43.  Defendants were an “employer” within the meaning of NYLL Article 6, §190(3),   and any supporting regulations.   44.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class overtime wages of not less than   one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a  workweek.   45.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class overtime wages was willful   and/or not in good faith within the meaning of NYLL, Article 19, §663.  Defendants were aware  of the requirements of the NYLL and continued to deprive Plaintiffs and the Class of all wages  owed.    46.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to   recover from Defendants their unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees,  costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.     13  47.  Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs as if they   were fully set forth herein.    48.  The NYLL expressly prohibits employers from making unauthorized deductions  from employees’ wages.    49.  NYLL §193 prohibits deductions from employees’ wages unless the deductions  are (1) expressly authorized by and “for the benefit of the employee” and (2) are limited to the  enumerated categories of permissible deductions listed in NYLL §193.    50.  Plaintiffs and the Class never authorized Defendants to withhold their wages for  the purpose of financing travel to perform work for Defendants and/or for other costs relating to  the operation of Defendants’ business.    51.  Deduction of overhead expenses provides a direct benefit to the employer, and not  to the employee.  The failure to reimburse Plaintiffs and the Class for their full expenses  associated with purchasing and/or using their personal vehicles during work hours, and for other  costs relating to Defendants’ business, to perform work for Defendants, constitutes an unlawful  deduction because the “purpose” of NYLL §193 was “[t]o prohibit wage deductions by indirect  means where direct deductions would violated the statute.”   52.  Thus, Defendants’ failure to reimburse Plaintiffs and the Class for their expenses  violates NYLL §193 because it is neither for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class nor of a type  allowable under NYLL §193.   14   53.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful deductions from their compensation,  Plaintiffs and the Class were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.   54.  Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege all of the preceding paragraphs as if they   were fully set forth herein.    55.  NYLL §195(3) requires that an employer furnish a wage statement, with each  payment, to an employee that provides basic information including but not limited to identifying  information of the employer and the employee’s hours worked and rate of pay for straight-time  and overtime hours.     56.  Defendants failed to provide to Plaintiffs proper pay statements as required by  NYLL §195(3).  The pay statements do not list the name and address of RCH Cable, who is the  Retention Specialists’ employer, do not accurately state the rate of pay and whether the  Retention Specialists are paid by the hour or piece, the telephone number of the employer, the  physical address of the employer’s office or principal place of business, the overtime rates of  pay, the number of regular hours worked, and the number of overtime hours worked.        57.  As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have  been damaged in an amount of statutory damages to be proven at trial.   Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq.:   Failure to Pay Overtime and Unlawful Deductions  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Collective)   New York Labor Law §193: Unlawful Deductions  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)   New York Labor Law §195(3): Inadequate Wage Statements  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)   New York Labor Law, Article 19: Failure to Pay Overtime  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)  