                Failure to Pay Minimum Wages              Failure to Reimburse Uniform Expenses  102.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.  103.  Defendants required Plaintiff to purchase uniforms for her employment, which cost her  approximately $150.  104.  Defendants never reimbursed Plaintiff for the cost she incurred to purchase uniforms.  105.  A six (6) year statute of limitation applies to each such violation pursuant to NY CLS  Labor § 198(3).  106.  Defendants’ conduct and practice, described above, was and/or is willful, intentional,  unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.  107.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was illegally deprived of reimbursement for  uniform expenses, in such amounts to be determined at trail, and is entitled to recovery of total  unpaid amounts, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees  pursuant to NY CLS Labor § 198(3).         Failure to Reimburse Uniform Expenses  152.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.  153.  Defendants required their hourly-paid employees to purchase uniforms, but did not  reimburse them for the costs they incurred purchasing uniforms.  154.  A six (6) year statute of limitation applies to each such violation pursuant to NY CLS  Labor § 198(3).  155.  Defendants’ conduct and practice, described above, was and/or is willful, intentional,  unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.  156.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and other employees in the putative NYLL class  were illegally deprived of reimbursement for uniform expenses, in such amounts to be  determined at trail, and are entitled to recovery of total unpaid amounts, liquidated damages,  prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to NY CLS Labor § 198(3).                   Failure to Pay Overtime Wages                           Plaintiff’s Employment               Failure to Provide Written Pay Notice        Failure to Pay Spread-of-Hours Compensation                      Defendants’ Hourly-paid Staff                    Failure to Provide Call-in Pay         Failure to Provide Uniform Maintenance Pay                       Failure to Pay Overtime Wages  118.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.  119.  Defendants required Plaintiff and other employees in the putative FLSA collective to  work over forty (40) hours in many weeks.  120.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other employees in the putative FLSA collective  time and a half (1.5) of their regular rate of pay for all hours in a work week in excess of forty  (40).  121.  Defendants’ conduct and practices, described herein, were/are willful, intentional,  unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.  122.  Because Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, a three (3) year statute of limitations  applies to such violation, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.  123.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and other employees in the putative FLSA  collective were illegally denied proper overtime compensation earned, in such amounts to be  determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of total unpaid amounts, liquidated damages,  costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  21.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.   22.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Front Desk Agent from approximately August  2014 through November 2014.   23.  When working as a Front Desk Agent, Plaintiffs’ job duties included booking  reservations and checking guests into Comfort Inn.   25.  Plaintiff worked approximately five to seven (5-7) shifts per week.   26.  Most of Plaintiff’s shifts lasted from either 7:00 AM until approximately 4:00 PM, or  from 3:00 PM – 12:00 AM.   27.  Plaintiff worked approximately fifty (50) hours per week.   28.  On many days, Plaintiff worked double shifts, resulting in more than ten (10) hours  elapsing between her arrival to and departure from work.                                                     Violations of the FLSA and NYLL   29.  In many weeks, Defendants shorted Plaintiff’s compensation by approximately five to  fifteen (15) hours.   30.  This included weeks in which Plaintiff worked over forty (40) hours.   31.  For example, in the week of October 20 – 26, 2014, Plaintiff worked approximately fifty  (50) hours but had eleven (11) hours shorted from per paycheck, and was only paid for thirty- nine (39) hours.   33.  Defendants never paid Plaintiff an additional hour’s worth of pay at the basic minimum  rate for days on which more than ten (10) hours elapsed between the beginning and end of her  workday.   34.  On some days, Defendants required Plaintiff to report for work at Comfort Inn but then  cancelled her shift and did not pay her for it.   35.  Defendants required Plaintiff to purchase uniforms for her employment, which cost her  approximately $150.   36.  Defendants never reimbursed Plaintiff for the cost she incurred to purchase uniforms.   37.  Defendants required Plaintiff to clean and maintain her work uniform, but did not provide  her with any additional compensation beyond her regular pay on account of her maintenance of  her uniform.   38.  Defendants’ wrongful acts and/or omissions/commissions, as alleged herein, were not  made in good faith, or in conformity with or in reliance on any written administrative regulation,  order, ruling, approval, or interpretation by the U.S. Department of Labor and/or the New York  Department of Labor, or any administrative practice or enforcement policy of such departments.  Defendants’ violations of the above-described federal and state wage and hour statutes and  regulations were willful, arbitrary, unreasonable and in bad faith.  40.  At all relevant times, Defendants have maintained a workforce consisting of  approximately twenty (20) hourly-paid employees: Front Desk Agents, House-keepers, and  Bellmen.   41.  All of Defendants’ hourly-paid employees performed similar, over-lapping duties.   42.  All of Defendants’ hourly-paid employees worked a similar schedule dictated by the  volume of business at Comfort Inn.   43.  Many hourly-paid employees worked over forty (40) hours per week.    44.  Many hourly-paid employees worked at least some days lasting over ten (10) hours.  Common Policies Warranting FLSA Collective Certification   45.  Defendants have maintained a common policy of shorting hourly-paid employees’  compensation by not paying them for all hours worked, including hours in excess of (40) each  week.   46.  Defendants have maintained a common policy of requiring employees to “train” off the  clock even when they are no longer training and in fact performing regular job duties.   47.  Plaintiff assets claims for the foregoing FLSA violations not only individually, but also  on behalf of a putative FLSA collective defined as:  Any individual who worked as a Front Desk Agent, House-keeper,  or Bellmen at the Comfort Inn located at 154 Madison St., New  York, NY 10002 at any time within 3 years preceding the filing of  this lawsuit and present.   Common Policies Warranting NYLL Rule 23 Certification   49.  Defendants have maintained a common policy of requiring employees to “train” off the  clock even when they are no longer training and in fact performing their regular job duties.   50.  Defendants failed to provide their hourly-paid employees, within ten business days after  they were hired or at any subsequent time, with written notice containing:  a. rate and basis of pay;  b. allowances claimed;  c.  the regular pay day;  d. the name of Defendant;  e. the “doing business as” names used by Defendant;  f. the physical address of the Defendants’ principal place of business; and  g. Defendants’ telephone number.   51.  Defendants failed to pay their hourly-paid employees any additional compensation for  days worked in excess of ten (10) hours.   52.  Defendants required their hourly-paid employees to report for shift in which they were  paid for less than three (3) hours.   53.  Defendants required their hourly-paid employees to purchase uniforms, but did not  reimburse them for the costs they incurred purchasing uniforms.   54.  Defendants required their hourly-paid employees to wash and maintain their uniforms,  but did not provide them with uniform maintenance pay.   56.  This action is properly brought as a class action pursuant to the class action procedures of  Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   57.  The putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. While the  exact number and identities of class members are unknown at this time and can only be  ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that over forty (40) class members  have worked for Defendants during the applicable statutory period while being subjected to the  violations of the NYLL referred to herein.   58.  This litigation is properly brought as a class action because of the existence of questions  of fact and law common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only  individual members, including:  a. Whether Defendants paid Plaintiff and other putative class members overtime  compensation for all hours worked;  b. Whether Defendants paid and/or was required to pay Plaintiff and other putative class  members spread-of-hours compensation;  c. Whether Defendants satisfied the notification requirements of the NYLL.   59.  This litigation is properly brought as a class action because Plaintiff’s claims are typical  of the claims of the members of the class, inasmuch as all such claims arise from Defendants’  standard policies and/or practices, as alleged herein. Like all class members, Plaintiff was  damaged by Defendants’ common NYLL violations.   61.  A class action is an appropriate and superior method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the present controversy given the following factors:  a. Common questions of law and/or fact predominate over any individual questions  which may arise, and, accordingly, there would accrue enormous savings to both the  Court and the class in litigating the common issues on a classwide instead of on a  repetitive individual basis;  b. Despite the size of individual class members’ claims, their aggregate volume, coupled  with the economies of scale inherent in litigating similar claims on a common basis,  will enable this case to be litigated as a class action on a cost-effective basis,  especially when compared with repetitive individual litigation; and  c. No unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class  action in that all questions of law and/or fact to be litigated at the liability stage of this  action are common to the class.   62.  Class certification is also fair and efficient because prosecution of separate actions by  individual class members would create a risk of differing adjudications with respect to such  individual members of the class, which as a practical matter may be dispositive of the interests of  other members no parties to the adjudication, or substantially impair or impede their ability to  protect their interests.    63.  Plaintiff anticipates that there will be no difficulty in the management of this litigation.  This litigation presents NYLL claims of a type that have often been prosecuted on a classwide  basis, and the manner of identifying the class and providing any monetary relief to them can  easily be effectuated from a review of Defendants’ records.  64.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.   65.  Plaintiff worked over forty (40) hours in many weeks.   66.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) of her regular rate of pay for all  hours in a work week in excess of forty (40).   67.  Defendants’ conduct and practices, described herein, were/are willful, intentional,  unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.   68.  Because Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, a three (3) year statute of limitations  applies to such violation, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.   69.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was illegally denied proper overtime compensation  earned, in such amounts to be determined at trial, and is entitled to recovery of total unpaid  amounts, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b).  70.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.   71.  Defendants required Plaintiff to work off the clock and failed to pay her for each hour she  worked.   72.  A six (6) year statute of limitation applies to each such violation pursuant to NY CLS  Labor § 198(3).   74.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was illegally deprived of minimum wages earned, in  such amounts to be determined at trail, and is entitled to recovery of total unpaid amounts,  liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to NY  CLS Labor § 198(3).  75.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.   76.  Plaintiff worked over forty (40) hours in many weeks.   77.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) of her regular rate of pay for all  hours in a work week in excess of forty (40).   78.  A six (6) year statute of limitation applies to each such violation pursuant to NY CLS  Labor § 198(3).   79.  Defendants’ conduct and practice, described above, was and/or is willful, intentional,  unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.   80.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was illegally deprived of overtime wages earned, in  such amounts to be determined at trail, and is entitled to recovery of total unpaid amounts,  liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to NY  CLS Labor § 198(3).  82.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with written notice of pay rates within ten (10)  business days after she was hired or any time thereafter.   83.  A six (6) year statute of limitation applies to each such violation pursuant to NY CLS  Labor § 198(3).   84.  Defendants’ conduct and practice, described above, was and/or is willful, intentional,  unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.   85.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of statutory penalties,  liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to NY  CLS Labor § 198(1-b).   86.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.   87.  On many days, Defendants required Plaintiff to work over ten (10) hours.   88.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff an additional hour’s worth of pay for days in which ten  (10) or more hours elapsed between the beginning and end of her work day.   89.  A six (6) year statute of limitation applies to each such violation pursuant to NY CLS  Labor § 198(3).   90.  Defendants’ conduct and practice, described above, was and/or is willful, intentional,  unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.   92.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.   93.  On some days, Defendants required Plaintiff to report for work at Comfort Inn but then  cancelled her shift and did not pay her for it.   94.  A six (6) year statute of limitation applies to each such violation pursuant to NY CLS  Labor § 198(3).   95.  Defendants’ conduct and practice, described above, was and/or is willful, intentional,  unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.   96.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was illegally deprived of spread-of-hours overtime  compensation earned, in such amounts to be determined at trail, and is entitled to recovery of  total unpaid amounts, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s  fees pursuant to NY CLS Labor § 198(3).  97.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.   98.  Defendants required Plaintiff to clean and maintain her work uniform, but did not provide  her with any additional compensation beyond her regular pay on account of her maintenance of  her uniform.   Failure to Pay Spread-of-Hours Compensation  136.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive, as if  fully set forth herein.  137.  Defendants required Plaintiff and other employees in the putative NYLL class to work  over ten (10) hours on many days.  138.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other employees in the putative NYLL class an  additional hour’s worth of pay for days in which ten (10) or more hours elapsed between the  beginning and end of their work day.  139.  A six (6) year statute of limitation applies to each such violation pursuant to NY CLS  Labor § 198(3).  140.  Defendants’ conduct and practice, described above, was and/or is willful, intentional,  unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.  141.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and other employees in the putative NYLL class  were illegally deprived of spread-of-hours overtime compensation earned, in such amounts to be  determined at trail, and are entitled to recovery of total unpaid amounts, liquidated damages,  prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to NY CLS Labor § 198(3). 