25.  Defendants operate two Irish restaurants located in the Midtown West section of  Manhattan in New York City.    26.  Upon information and belief, individual Defendants John Creegan and Brendan  Creegan possess operational control over the Defendant Corporations, each possess an ownership  interest in Defendant Corporations, and control significant functions of Defendant Corporations.   27.  Defendants are associated and joint employers, act in the interest of each other with  respect to employees, pay employees by the same method, and share control over the employees.   29.  Defendants jointly have employed Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated individuals,  and are their (and all similarly situated individuals’) employers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.  201 et seq. and the NYLL.   30.  In the alternative, Defendants constitute a single employer of Plaintiffs and  similarly situated individuals.   31.  Upon information and belief, Individual Defendants John Creegan and Brendan  Creegan operate Defendant Corporations as either alter egos of themselves, and/or fail to operate  Defendant Corporations as entities legally separate and apart from themselves, by, among other  things:  a) failing to adhere to the corporate formalities necessary to operate the Defendant  Corporations as separate and legally distinct entities;   b) defectively forming or maintaining the Defendant Corporations, by among other  things, failing to hold annual meetings or to maintain appropriate corporate records;  c) transferring assets and debts freely as between all Defendants;   d) operating the Defendant Corporations for their own benefit as the sole or majority  shareholders;   e) operating the Defendant Corporations for their own benefit and maintaining control  over these corporations as closed corporations or closely held controlled entities;   f) intermingling assets and debts of their own with the Defendant Corporations;   g) diminishing and/or transferring assets to protect their own interests; and   h) other actions evincing a failure to adhere to the corporate form.   33.  In each year from 2013 to the present, Defendants, both separately and jointly, have  had a gross annual volume of sales of not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail  level that are separately stated).   34.  In addition, upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their enterprise were  directly engaged in interstate commerce. For example, numerous items that were used and sold  daily at John Sullivan’s Bar & Grill and Jack Doyle’s Irish Pub, such as vegetables and beverages,  were produced outside the state of New York.  Individual Plaintiffs   35.  Plaintiffs are former and current employees of defendants and have been employed  as cooks, salad preparers, dishwashers, and porters.   36.  They seek to represent a class of similarly situated individuals under 29 U.S.C.  216(b).  Plaintiff Efrain Anzures Reyes   37.  Plaintiff Anzures has been employed by Defendants from approximately April 2016  until on or about March 2017 and from approximately October 2017 until the present date.   38.  During the course of his employment, Plaintiff Anzures has worked at Defendants’  John Sullivan’s location.    39.  Plaintiff Anzures has been employed by Defendants as a dishwasher.    41.  Plaintiff Anzures’s work duties have required neither discretion nor independent  judgment.   42.  Plaintiff Anzures regularly has worked in excess of 40 hours per week.   43.  From approximately April 2016 until on or about November 2016, Plaintiff  Anzures worked from approximately 5:00 p.m. until on or about 3:00 a.m. five days a week and  from approximately 5:00 p.m. until on or about 3:15 p.m. one day a week (typically 60.25 hours  per week).   44.  From approximately December 2016 until on or about February 2017, Plaintiff  Anzures worked from approximately 9:00 a.m. until on or about 9:00 p.m. four days a week, from  approximately 9:00 a.m. until on or about 9:15 p.m. one day a week, and from approximately 9:00  a.m. until on or about 3:00 p.m. one day a week (typically 66.25 hours per week).   45.  From approximately February 2017 until on or about March 2017, Plaintiff Anzures  worked from approximately 9:00 a.m. until on or about 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. six days a week  (typically 48 to 54 hours per week).   46.  From approximately October 2017 until the present date, Plaintiff Anzures has  worked from approximately 9:00 a.m. until on or about 4:00 p.m. six days a week (typically 42  hours per week).   47.  Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Anzures has been paid his  wages in cash.   48.  From approximately April 2016 until on or about January 2017, Plaintiff Anzures  was paid $10.00 per regular and overtime hour.   50.  Defendants never have granted Plaintiff Anzures a meal break or rest period of any  length.   51.  Defendants have not provided Plaintiff Anzures with a statement of wages with  each payment of wages, as required by NYLL 195(3).    52.  No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means, has been given  to Plaintiff Anzures regarding overtime and wages under the FLSA and NYLL.   53.  Defendants have not given any notice to Plaintiff Anzures, in English and in  Spanish (Plaintiff Anzures’s primary language), of his rate of pay, employer’s regular pay day,  and such other information as required by NYLL §195(1).   Plaintiff Benito Garcia   54.  Plaintiff Garcia was employed by Defendants from approximately November 2015  until on or about November 17, 2017.    55.  During the course of his employment, Plaintiff Garcia worked at defendants’ John  Sullivan’s location.   56.   Plaintiff Garcia was employed by Defendants as a cook.    57.  Plaintiff Garcia regularly handled goods in interstate commerce, such as meats and  other supplies produced outside the state of New York.    58.  Plaintiff Garcia’s work duties required neither discretion nor independent  judgment.   59.  Plaintiff Garcia regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.   61.  Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Garcia was paid his wages  in a combination of check and cash.   62.  Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff Garcia by check for his first 40 hours and in  cash for his hours over 40.   63.  From approximately November 2015 until on or about January 2016, Plaintiff  Garcia was paid $14.00 per hour.   64.  From approximately February 2016 until on or about August 2017, Plaintiff Garcia  was paid $15.00 per hour.    65.  From approximately September 2017 until on or about November 17, 2017,  Plaintiff Garcia was paid $18.00 per hour.   66.  Defendants never granted Plaintiff Garcia a meal break or rest period of any length.   67.  No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means, was given to  Plaintiff Garcia regarding overtime and wages under the FLSA and NYLL.   68.  Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiff Garcia, in English and in Spanish  (Plaintiff Garcia’s primary language), of his rate of pay, employer’s regular pay day, and such  other information as required by NYLL §195(1).    70.  Plaintiff Cornejal has been employed by Defendants from approximately March 25,  2016 until on or about October 2016, from approximately November 2016 until on or about April  2017, and from approximately August 3, 2017 until the present date.    71.  During the course of his employment, Plaintiff Cornejal worked at Defendants’  Jack Doyle’s location from approximately March 25, 2016 until on or about October 2016 and  from approximately November 2016 until on or about April 2017; he then has worked at  Defendant’s John Sullivan’s location from approximately August 3, 2017 until the present date.   72.   Plaintiff Cornejal has been employed by Defendants as a porter.   73.  Plaintiff Cornejal regularly has handled goods in interstate commerce, such as  cleaning supplies and other supplies produced outside the state of New York.    74.  Plaintiff Cornejal’s work duties have required neither discretion nor independent  judgment.   75.  Plaintiff Cornejal regularly has worked in excess of 40 hours per week.   76.  From approximately March 25, 2016 until on or about October 2016 and from  approximately November 2016 until on or about April 2017, Plaintiff Cornejal worked at the Jack  Doyle location from approximately 12:00 a.m. until on or about 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Wednesdays  through Mondays (typically 51 to 54 hours per week).   77.  From approximately August 3, 2017 until the present date, Plaintiff Cornejal has  worked at the John Sullivan location from approximately 12:00 a.m. until on or about 8:30 a.m. to  9:00 a.m. seven days a week (typically 58 to 60 hours per week).   79.  From approximately March 25, 2016 until on or about December 2016, Plaintiff  Cornejal was paid $10.00 per hour.   80.  However, for approximately one week during this time period, Plaintiff Cornejal  was not paid his wages for the hours he worked.    81.  From approximately January 2017 until the present date, Plaintiff Cornejal has been  paid $11.00 per hour.   82.  However, Plaintiff Cornejal once had to pay an employee approximately $80.00  and he was promised that Defendants would pay him back but never did.   83.  Plaintiff Cornejal’s pay did not vary even when he was required to stay later or  work a longer day than his usual schedule.   84.  For example, from approximately March 2016 until on or about October 2016,  defendants required Plaintiff Cornejal to work thirty minutes past his scheduled departure time  some days of the week, and did not compensate him for the additional time he worked.   85.  Defendants never have granted Plaintiff Cornejal a meal break or rest period of any  length.   86.  Prior to November 2016, Plaintiff Cornejal was not required to keep track of his  time, nor to his knowledge, did defendants utilize any time tracking device, such as sign in sheets  or punch cards, to accurately reflect his actual hours worked.    87.  Defendants have not provided Plaintiff Cornejal with a statement of wages with  each payment of wages, as required by NYLL 195(3).    88.  No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means, has been given  to Plaintiff Cornejal regarding overtime and wages under the FLSA and NYLL.   90.  Plaintiff Antonio was employed by Defendants from approximately February 2013  until on or about January 2014 and from approximately March 2016 until on or about July 2017.   91.  Throughout his employment with defendants, Plaintiff Antonio worked at  Defendants’ Jack Doyle location.   92.  Plaintiff Antonio was employed by Defendants as a dishwasher and porter.    93.  Plaintiff Antonio regularly handled goods in interstate commerce, such as  dishwashing liquid and other supplies produced outside the state of New York.    94.  Plaintiff Antonio’s work duties required neither discretion nor independent  judgment.   95.  Plaintiff Antonio regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.   96.  From approximately February 2013 until on or about January 2014, Plaintiff  Antonio worked from approximately 12:00 a.m. until on or about 9:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. Sundays  through Fridays (typically 54 to 55.5 hours per week).   97.  From approximately March 2016 until on or about July 2017, Plaintiff Antonio  worked from approximately 5:00 a.m. until on or about 5:00 p.m. Tuesdays through Sundays  (typically 72 hours per week).   98.   Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Antonio was paid his  wages in cash.   Defendants Constitute Joint Employers   RECOVERY OF EQUIPMENT COSTS  185.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all paragraphs above as though set forth fully herein.  186.  Defendants have required Plaintiffs to pay, without reimbursement, the costs and  expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and “tools of the trade” required to perform  their jobs, such as kitchen shoes, further reducing their wages in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.   29 U.S.C.  § 206(a); 29 C.F.R. § 531.35; N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 193 and 198-b.  187.  Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.  VIOLATION OF THE NOTICE AND RECORDKEEPING   REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW  179.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.  180.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs (and the FLSA and Rule 23 class members)  with a written notice, in English and in Spanish (Plaintiffs’ primary language), containing: the rate  or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece,  commission, or other; allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage, including tip,  meal, or lodging allowances; the regular pay day designated by the employer; the name of the  employer; any "doing business as" names used by the employer; the physical address of the  employer's main office or principal place of business, and a mailing address if different; and the  telephone number of the employer, as required by NYLL §195(1).   181.  Defendants are liable to each Plaintiff in the amount of $5,000, together with costs  and attorneys’ fees.  VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS   OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW  171.   Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.  172.  Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation at rates of one and  one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek,  in violation of NYLL Art. 19 and 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-2.2.  173.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation has been willful within  the meaning of NYLL § 663.  174.  Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.  VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE FLSA  163.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.  164.  Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA and Rule 23 class members  overtime compensation at rates of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour  worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1).  165.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA and Rule 23 class members  overtime compensation has been willful within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).  166.  Plaintiffs and the FLSA and Rule 23 class members have been damaged in an  amount to be determined at trial. 