14.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and  have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions,  and are and have been subjected to Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,  procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay  them overtime premium for hours worked in excess of forty (40) each workweek. The claims of  Plaintiff stated herein are essentially the same as those of the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.             17.  The claims for relief are properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in  collective action pursuant to §16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs are readily ascertainable. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this  action, their names and addresses are readily available from the Defendants. Notice can be  provided to the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs via first class mail to the last address known to  Defendants.  26.   On or about June 6, 2016, Plaintiff SILVINO FELIX MARTINEZ was hired by  to work as a scaffolding worker for Defendants’ Artisan Preservation business.    27.   Plaintiff worked for Defendants until on or about August 16, 2016,   29.  Throughout his employment by Defendants, Plaintiff was compensated at a fixed  daily rate of $130 per day worked. Plaintiff was always paid his entire fixed daily salary in cash.  Similarly, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were also paid by Defendants at fixed  daily rates in cash only.   30.  Although Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek  during his employment by Defendants, Defendants never paid him overtime premium at a rate of  one and one-half times his straight time hourly rate for such hours that he worked in excess of  forty (40), as required under the FLSA and NYLL. There was never any agreement that the fixed  daily salary that Defendants paid Plaintiff covered overtime hours in excess of forty (40) that  Plaintiff worked each week.    31.  Similarly, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members regularly worked in  excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, and never received any overtime premium at a rate of  one and one-half times their straight time hourly rates of pay for the hours in excess of forty (40)  they worked. Like Plaintiff, other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members never formed  any agreement that the fixed daily salaries that they received from Defendants were inclusive of  overtime pay.    33.  During his employment by Defendants, Plaintiff never received a proper wage  statement. In fact, Defendants never provided Plaintiff with any wage statements during his  employment. Similarly, Class Members never received proper wage statements.   34.  Throughout his employment by Defendants, Plaintiff was the victim of severe and  unrelenting gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment at the hands of his direct  supervisors, as well as other employees of Defendants’ business. Defendants intentionally  implemented policies resulting in an extremely hostile work environment, in which supervisory  and managerial employees, among others, were permitted to openly discriminate against Plaintiff  on the basis of gender and Plaintiff’s perceived gender-based characteristics, and to sexually  harass him, without fear that such open discriminatory conduct would result in any negative  consequences whatsoever.   35.  Plaintiff was born with a speech impediment, causing him to speak in a very soft,  low volume voice at all times. Plaintiff’s direct supervisors, foremen Luis [LNU] and Carlos  [LNU] indicated to Plaintiff very shortly after the commencement of his employment that they  viewed Plaintiff’s speech impediment to be a sign of his effeminacy and/or homosexuality.   37.  Luis [LNU] and Carlos [LNU] would also request that Plaintiff retrieve tools for  them, without having any intention of using such tools. Instead, once Plaintiff brought them the  tools requested, they would reference the tools in crude, homophobic, remarks regarding  Plaintiff, such as “Wow, this tool is shaped like a dick. I bet you would like to stick it up your  ass, faggot.” The foremen would then require Plaintiff to return the tool to where he got it from,  unused. Although Plaintiff was aware that the foremen were requiring him to retrieve tools for  the sole purpose of harassing him, he was nevertheless required to obey his supervisors and  retrieve the tools each time he was asked to.   38.  During his employment by Defendants, Plaintiff was the lowest paid employee at  Defendants’ business. Other new hires were typically compensated at a fixed daily rate of $160.  However, due to Defendants’ policy of gender-based discrimination against him, Plaintiff was  deemed unworthy of the standard initial salary provided to other new employees, and thus  received a lower fixed daily rate of only $130 per day. Whenever Plaintiff attempted to broach  the topic of his relatively low rate of daily compensation compared to other new employees with  Luis [LNU] and Carlos [LNU], they would dismiss his concerns out of hand, and respond by  calling him a “faggot”.   40.  Plaintiff was unable to directly respond in any way to the above-described sexual  harassment and homophobic, gender-based mockery because he believed that Defendatns would  fire him if he did so.   41.  Extremely distressed by the discriminatory conduct of his supervisors and fellow  non-managerial employees towards him, and by the rampant sexual harassment that he was  subjected to on the job each day that he worked, Plaintiff informed Defendant IGNACIO [LNU]  of his situation. However, Defendant IGNACIO [LNU] refused to help. When Plaintiff persisted  in attempting to contact IGNACIO [LNU] by telephone, Defendant IGNACIO [LNU] responded  by blocking Plaintiff’s cellphone number.    42.  Defendant CHRIS YACONO also willfully ignored Plaintiff’s attempt to advise  Defendants of the harassment that he was subjected to, and was deliberately indifferent to his  suffering at the hands of other employees.    44.  Defendants unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and  Class members either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half) or the New York State  overtime rate (of time and one-half) for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek.   45.  Defendants unlawfully failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with wage  and hour notices upon hiring, as required under the NYLL.   46.  Defendants unlawfully failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with wage  statements for each pay period, as required under the NYLL.   47. Plaintiff retained Lee Litigation Group, PLLC to represent Plaintiff, FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs and Class members, in this litigation and have agreed to pay the firm a  reasonable fee for its services.  48.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 47 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   49.  At all relevant times, Defendants were and continue to be employers engaged in  interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207 (a).  Further, Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are  covered individuals within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207 (a).   51.  At all relevant times, the Corporate Defendant had gross annual revenues in  excess of $500,000.00.   52.  At all relevant times, the Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of refusing  to pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and one-half to Plaintiff and FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek.   53.  Plaintiff is in possession of certain records concerning the number of hours  worked by Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the actual compensation paid to Plaintiff  and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. Further records concerning these matters should be in the  possession and custody of the Defendants. Plaintiff intends to obtain all records by appropriate  discovery proceedings to be taken promptly in this case and, if necessary, will then seek leave of  Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the precise amount due.    54.  Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA.   55.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful disregard of the FLSA,  Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated (i.e., double) damages pursuant  to the FLSA.   56.  Due to the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and  FLSA Collective Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount not presently ascertainable of unpaid  overtime wages, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages.   57.  Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their  reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).  65.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 64 of this Complaint as if  fully set forth herein.   66.  The New York State Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination in the terms,  conditions, and privileges of employment on the basis of an individual’s gender.   67.  Plaintiff is an employee and a qualified person within the meaning of the New  York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and Defendants are covered employers under the  70.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 69 of this Complaint as if  fully set forth herein.     72.  Defendants operated a business that discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of  the NYCHRL by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile work environment, in the form of constant  harassment on the basis of gender. Such discriminatory conduct by Defendants ultimately led to  Plaintiff’s termination by Defendants.   73.  Due to Defendants’ violations under the New York City Human Rights Law, as  amended, based on discrimination on the basis of gender, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from  Defendants: (1) compensatory and punitive damages and (2) attorneys’ fees and costs.  VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF  AND FLSA COLLECTIVE PLAINTIFFS   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW  (GENDER DISCRIMINATION)  