25.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 216(b), Plaintiffs bring their First Cause of  Action as a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and the following  collective:  All persons employed by Defendants at any time since September  18, 2012 and through the entry of judgment in this case (the  “Collective Action Period”) who worked as stock employees (the  “Collective Action Members”).   26.  A collective action is appropriate in this circumstance because Plaintiffs and the  Collective Action Members are similarly situated, in that they were all subjected to Defendants’  illegal policy of failing to pay overtime premiums for work performed in excess of forty (40)  hours each week and failure to pay for all overtime hours due to improper shaving of hours.  As a  result of these policies, Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members did not receive the legally- required overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.   27.  Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members have substantially similar job  duties, and are paid pursuant to a similar, if not the same, payment structure.  6  28.  Pursuant to the NYLL, Plaintiffs brings their Second through Fifth Causes of  Action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and the  following class:  All persons employed by Defendants in New York at any time  since September 18, 2009 and through the entry of judgment in this  case (the “Class Period”) who worked as stock employees (the  “Class Members”).   29.  The Class Members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the  Class Members are determinable from the records of Defendants.  For purposes of notice and  other purposes related to this action, their names and addresses are readily available from  Defendants. Notice can be provided by means permissible under Rule 23.     30.   The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   31.  Upon information and belief, there are in excess of forty (40) Class Members.   32.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate  over any questions solely affecting individual Class members. Such common questions will  determine Defendants’ liability to all (or nearly all) Class Members. Common questions include:    a. whether Defendants employed Plaintiffs and the Class Members within the meaning of  the NYLL;  b. whether Defendants failed to keep true and accurate time records for all hours worked by  Plaintiffs and the Class Members;  c. whether Defendants “shaved” Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ hours when they  clocked in late or clocked out early;  d. whether Defendants failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members wages  for all hours worked;  7  e. whether Defendants failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members  overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek;  f. whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class Members with a proper  statement of wages with every wage payment as required by the NYLL;  g. whether Defendants failed to provide proper wage notice to Plaintiffs and Class Members  at the beginning of their employment and/or on February 1 of each year as required by  the NYLL;  h. whether Defendants’ failure to properly pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members lacked a  good faith basis; and  i. whether Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not  limited to compensatory damages, liquidated damages, interest, costs and disbursements  and attorneys’ fees.   33.  The answer to these questions would drive resolution of the litigation. If a judge  and/or jury agrees with Plaintiffs on these issues, Defendants would be liable to all Class  Members for their NYLL wage and hour violations.   34.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Class Members’ claims. Plaintiffs, like all  Class Members, are stock employees of Defendants who worked for Defendants pursuant to their  corporate policies.  Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, were, inter alia, not paid overtime  premium pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours in a given workweek, not paid for all hours  worked, not paid for spread-of-hours premiums when working did not receive proper wage  statements and wage notices.  If Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the claims enumerated in  this Complaint, they are also liable to all Class Members.   35.  Plaintiffs and their Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Class. There  8  are no conflicts between Plaintiffs and the Class Members, and Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit out of  a desire to help all Class Members, not merely out of a desire to recover their own damages.   36.  Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced class action litigators who are well-prepared to  represent the interests of the Class Members.   37.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation. Defendants are sophisticated parties with substantial resources.  The individual plaintiffs lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal  court against corporate defendants. The individual members of the Class have no interest or  capacity to bring separate actions; Plaintiffs are unaware of any other litigation concerning this  controversy; it is desirable to concentrate the litigation in one case; and there are no likely  difficulties that will arise in managing the class action.  38.  At all relevant times, Defendants have been in the supermarket business. Upon  information and belief, Defendants A. Dahran and M. Dahran, have owned, operated, and  managed the supermarkets which comprise the Key Food Enterprise.   39.  According to Key Food’s website, Defendants’ Atlantic Key Food and Nostrand  Key Food are both open Monday through Saturday from 8:00 am until 9:00 pm and Sunday from  8:00 am until 8:00 pm; and Defendants’ Merrick Key Food is open Monday through Saturday  from 7:00 am until 9:00 pm and Sundays from 7:00 am until 7:00 pm. (See www.keyfood.com).   40.  Throughout the relevant time period, Defendants A. Dahran and M. Dahran have  been constant presences at the Key Food Supermarkets and have taken active roles in ensuring  that the supermarkets run in accordance with their procedures and policies.   9   41.  Plaintiffs were generally supervised by Defendants’ managers at the supermarkets  yet Plaintiffs frequently observed that their managers received direct orders from A. Dahran and  M. Dahran.   42.  Upon information and belief, Defendants employ their staff interchangeably in all  of their various divisions of the Key Food Enterprise, including all three (3) Key Food  Supermarket locations discussed herein.    Plaintiffs’ Work for Defendants   43.  Plaintiff N. Garcia initially worked for Defendants as a dairy stock employee at  the Nostrand Key Food for approximately one (1) year, in or around 2010, and returned to work  for Defendants from in or around April 2013 through on or about July 10, 2015, as a dairy and  grocery stock employee at the Atlantic Key Food (the “N. Garcia Employment Period”).     44.  Throughout the N. Garcia Employment Period, Plaintiff was typically scheduled  to work approximately six (6) days per week, from approximately 8:00 am through  approximately 6:00 pm, for a total of between approximately fifty-four and fifty-seven (54-57)  hours per week.    45.  Plaintiff A. Garcia worked for Defendants as a grocery and dairy stock employee  at Defendants’ Key Food Supermarkets form in or around 2010 through in or around April 2013  (the “A. Garcia Employment Period”). From the beginning of the A. Garcia Employment Period  until in or around 2012, Plaintiff worked at the Nostrand Key Food. Thereafter, until in or around  the end of the A. Garcia Employment Period, Plaintiff worked at the Atlantic Key Food.   46.  Throughout the A. Garcia Employment Period, Plaintiff was typically scheduled  to work approximately six (6) days per week, from approximately 8:00 am through  approximately between 7:00 pm and 8:00 pm, for a total of between approximately sixty and  10  sixty-three (60-63) hours per week.   47.  Throughout their respective employment periods, for their work, Plaintiffs were  similarly paid on a purported “salary” basis with certain deductions, regardless of the specific  duties they performed.     48.  During the time when N. Garcia worked at the Nostrand Key Food, N. Garcia was  paid approximately $500.00 per week entirely in cash. During approximately the first year of  Plaintiff N. Garcia’s employment at the Atlantic Key Food, N. Garcia was paid approximately  $575.00 per week through a combination of check and cash. Thereafter, until the end of the N.  Garcia Employment Period, N. Garcia was paid approximately $625.00 per week through a  combination of check and cash.    49.  Throughout the entirety of the A. Garcia Employment Period, A. Garcia was paid  approximately $500.00 per week through a combination of check and cash.   50.  As a result of Defendants’ policy of paying Plaintiffs on a purported “salary”  basis, Plaintiffs were not paid overtime premiums when they worked more than forty (40) hours  per week.    51.  Throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiffs tracked the numbers of hours  worked by punching in and punching out on a time clock system. However, they typically  observed on numerous occasions that the time clock “shaved” their hours worked down to  between approximately fifteen (15) minutes and one (1) hour when they clocked in only minutes  late or clocked out early. As such, in addition to the unpaid overtime premiums, Plaintiffs did not  get paid for all hours worked due to Defendants “time shaving” policy.    52.  During their respective employment periods, when Plaintiffs worked fewer than  their required hours, Defendants deducted money from their salary on a pro-rated hourly basis.  11  Accordingly, Defendants, in effect, treated Plaintiffs as “hourly” employees, rather than pay  them an actual salary, yet they failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime premiums for hours worked over  40 each week.      53.  Plaintiffs have spoken with other stock employees of Defendants, including stock  employees who worked at the Merrick Key Food, who were similarly required to work in excess  of forty (40) hours per week during the Class Period and similarly did not receive overtime  premium pay for hours worked over forty (40) per workweek.   54.  Plaintiffs have also spoken with other stock employees of Defendants, who were  also subject to Defendants’ “time shaving” policy and, therefore were not paid for all overtime  hours worked.   55.  At no point during Plaintiffs’ employment did they receive a wage notice showing  his hourly or overtime rate at the date of his hiring or by February 1 of each year.  Also,  Plaintiffs’ were never provided a wage statement with the cash payment they received each  week, indicating the amount of hours they worked during the week, their regular rate, and/or  their overtime rate.    Defendants’ Unlawful Corporate Policies   56.  Plaintiffs have spoken with other employees of Defendants, including employees  who worked at the Merrick Key Food, who similarly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  week during the Class Period and did not receive overtime premiums of one-half their regular  hourly rate for hours over forty (40) each week.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and Class  Members overtime premiums was a corporate policy of Defendants which applied to all of their  stock employees throughout the relevant period.   57.  Plaintiffs have also spoken with other stock employees of Defendants, who were  12  also not paid for all overtime hours worked as a result of Defendants’ “time shaving” policy.   Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members for all overtime hours worked at one  and one-half their regular hourly rate was a corporate policy of Defendants which applied to all  of their stock employees throughout the relevant period.    58.  Plaintiff and the Class Members were all paid pursuant to the same corporate  policies of Defendants, including failing to pay overtime compensation and spread of hours  premiums.   59.  Throughout the Class Period and, upon information and belief, continuing until  today, Defendants have likewise employed other individuals like Plaintiffs in positions that  require little skill and no capital investment. Upon information and belief, such individuals were  not paid one and one-half when working in excess of forty (40) hours per week.  Additionally,  such individuals were not provided with proper wage notices at hiring, by February 1 of each  year, or on a weekly basis.   60.  Upon information and belief, throughout the Class Period and continuing until  today, Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient time and payroll records or provide  such records to employees. Defendants failed to provide employees with proper wage statements  each week and wage notice upon their hiring and/or on February 1 of each year and with  accurate wage statements as required by NYLL § 195.  13  61.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Collective Action Members, repeat and  reallege each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and  effect as though fully set forth herein.   62.  By “shaving” Plaintiffs’ hours and failing to pay overtime at a rate not less than  one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours per  week, Defendants have violated and continue to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.,  including 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a)(1) and 215(a)(2).   63.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   64.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime caused Plaintiffs and the Collective Action  Members to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon. Plaintiffs and the Collective Action  Members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime premium compensation,  damages for unreasonably delayed payment of wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’  fees, and costs and disbursements of the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  65.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, repeat and reallege  each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as  though fully set forth herein.   66.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ rights by failing  to pay overtime compensation at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of  14  pay for hours worked in excess of 40 each week, in violation of the NYLL and regulations  promulgated thereunder.   67.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime premium compensation caused Plaintiffs and  the Class Members to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon. Plaintiff and the Class Members  are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime compensation, damages for  unreasonably delayed payment of wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and  costs and disbursements of the action pursuant to NYLL §§ 663(1) et seq.  68.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, repeat and reallege  each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as  though fully set forth herein.   69.  Defendants have willfully failed to supply Plaintiffs and the Class Members  notice as required by Article 6, § 195, in English or in the language identified by Plaintiffs and  the Class Members as their primary language, containing Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rate or  rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece,  commission, or other; hourly rate or rates of pay and overtime rate or rates of pay, if applicable;   the regular pay day designated by the employer in accordance with the NYLL, Article 6, § 191;  the name of the employer; or 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; the telephone number of the employer; plus such other information as the  commissioner deems material and necessary.   70.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants fifty dollars ($50) per employee for each workweek that the  15  violations occurred or continue to occur, up to a maximum of twenty-five hundred dollars  ($2,500) per employee, as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190, et seq., liquidated damages  as provided for by the NYLL, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment  interest, and injunctive and declaratory relief.  71.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, repeat and reallege  each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as  though fully set forth herein.   72.  Defendants have willfully failed to supply Plaintiffs and Class Members with an  accurate statement of wages as required by NYLL, Article 6, § 195, containing the dates of work  covered by that payment of wages; name of employee; name of employer; address and phone  number of employer; rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day,  week, salary, piece, commission, or other; gross wages; hourly rate or rates of pay and overtime  rate or rates of pay if applicable; the number of hours worked, including overtime hours worked  if applicable; deductions; and net wages.    73.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each workweek  that the violations occurred or continue to occur, up to a maximum of twenty-five hundred  dollars ($2,500) per employee, as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190 et seq., liquidated  damages as provided for by the NYLL, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, and injunctive and declaratory relief.  16  Defendants’ Supermarkets   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – UNPAID OVERTIME   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGE NOTICE   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGE STATEMENT   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – UNPAID OVERTIME  