18.  Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section  16(b), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all non-exempt employees (including cooks, line cooks,  food preparers, cashiers, counter persons, dishwashers, porters, cleaning persons and delivery  persons) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the  Complaint in this case as defined herein (“FLSA Collective Plaintiffs”).   19.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and 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 (i) proper overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate and  (ii) wages for all hours worked due to a policy of time shaving. The claims of Plaintiff stated  herein are essentially the same as those of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.   21.  Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  (“F.R.C.P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt employees (including cooks, line cooks, food  preparers, cashiers, counter persons, dishwashers, porters, cleaning persons and delivery persons)  employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in  this case as defined herein (the “Class Period”).   22.  All said persons, including Plaintiff, are referred to herein as the “Class.” The  Class members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the Class members are  determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and worked, the position held,  and rates of pay for each Class member are also determinable from Defendants’ records. 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 F.R.C.P. 23.   23.  The proposed Class is so numerous that a joinder of all members is impracticable,  and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court. Although the  precise number of such persons is unknown, the facts on which the calculation of that number  are presently within the sole control of Defendants, there is no doubt that there are more than  forty (40) members of the Class.   25.  Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has  no interests antagonistic to the Class. Plaintiff is represented by attorneys who are experienced  and competent in both class action litigation and employment litigation and have previously  represented plaintiffs in wage and hour cases.   27.  Defendants and other employers throughout the state violate the New York Labor  Law. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect  retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing claims because doing so can harm their  employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure employment. Class actions provide  class members who are not named in the Complaint a degree of anonymity, which allows for the  vindication of their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.   29.  From in or about January 2017 until on or about March 9, 2017, Plaintiff PEDRO  URAGA was employed by Defendants to work as a porter for Defendants’ “Essen Midtown  West Location” located at 519 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10018.   31.  Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff PEDRO URAGA was paid  at a straight-time hourly rate of $11.00 per hour for all work hours for which he was paid, including  hours in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Based on Plaintiff PEDRO URAGA’s direct  observations and conversations with other employees at Essen Restaurants, all FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs and Class members were similarly paid at a straight-time hourly rate for all hours,  including hours in excess of forty (40) hours per week.   33.  During the course of Plaintiff PEDRO URAGA’s employment with Defendants,  Defendants caused disparate treatment towards Plaintiff based on his national origin. The general  manager of Essen Midtown West Location, Kevin [Last Name Unknown, hereinafter, “LNU”]  routinely verbally abused Plaintiff, disparaging his Mexican nationality and referring to him as a  “fucking Mexican.” During the last month of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Kevin  LNU grew increasingly abusive and hostile towards Plaintiff. Kevin LNU constantly yelled and  cursed at Plaintiff in Kevin LNU’s primary language, Korean. After months of enduring anguish  and distress under Defendants’ hostile work environment, Plaintiff was forced to leave his job on  or about March 9, 2017.   34.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members  regularly worked over forty (40) hours per week, but Defendants failed to pay them the proper  overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.   35.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members  similarly suffered from Defendants’ failure to pay wages for all hours worked due to a time  shaving policy with respect to meal breaks.   36.  At no time during the relevant time periods did Defendants provide Plaintiff or  Class members with proper wage and hour notices or wage statements as required by NYLL.   38.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying wages for all hours worked due to a policy of time shaving.   39.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  providing proper wage statements to Plaintiff and Class members, in violation of the NYLL.   40.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  providing proper wage and hour notices to Plaintiff and Class members in violation of the  42.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   43.  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).   44.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs within the meaning of the FLSA.   46.  At all relevant times, Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of failing to  pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of one and one-half times the regular rate to  Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  workweek.   47.  At all relevant times, Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of failing to  pay Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for all hours worked due to time shaving.   48.  Defendants knew of and/or showed a willful disregard for the provisions of the  FLSA as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the  full and proper regular and overtime wages when Defendants knew or should have known such  was due.   49.  Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA.   50.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful disregard of the FLSA,  Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.   51.  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  wages and overtime compensation, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages.   53.  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).  54.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 54 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   55.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members were employed by Defendants  within the meaning of the New York Labor Law §§ 2 and 651.   56.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff’s and Class members’ rights by failing to  pay them for all hours worked due to a policy of time shaving.   57.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff’s and Class members’ rights by failing to  pay them overtime compensation at the rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular  rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek.   58.  Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to provide proper wage and hour  notices to Plaintiff and Class members, as required by New York Labor Law § 195(1).   59.  Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to provide proper wage statements to  Plaintiff and Class members with every wage payment, as required by New York Labor Law §  195(3).   61.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as if  fully set forth herein.   62.  Plaintiff is an employee and a qualified person within the meaning of the  NYSHRL and Defendants are covered employers under the NYSHRL.   63.  Defendants violated Plaintiff’s statutory protected rights under the NYSHRL,  New York Executive Law § 296, by engaging in discriminatory employment practices and  subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile work environment based on his national origin.   64.  Defendants’ conduct was intentional, malicious, willful or in reckless disregard of  Plaintiff’s protected rights under the NYSHRL.   65.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful employment practice, Plaintiff sustained  injury, including economic damages, the past and future emotional distress, and the costs of  bringing this action.   66.  Due to Defendants’ violation under the NYSHRL, based on discrimination on the  basis of national origin, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) an injunction  ordering Defendants to cease its discriminatory practices as described herein; (2) economic  damages; and (3) compensatory damages.  68.  Plaintiff is an employee and a qualified person within the meaning of the  NYCHRL and Defendants are covered employers under the NYCHRL.   69.  Defendants violated Plaintiff’s statutory protected rights under the NYCHRL,  Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107, by engaging in discriminatory  employment practices and subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile work environment based on his  national origin.   70.  Defendants’ conduct was intentional, malicious, willful or in reckless disregard of  Plaintiff’s protected rights under the NYCHRL.   71.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful employment practice, Plaintiff sustained  injury, including economic damages, the past and future emotional distress, and the costs of  bringing this action.   72.  Due to Defendants’ violation under the NYCHRL based on sexual harassment  and discrimination on the basis of national origin, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from  Defendants: (1) economic damages; (2) compensatory damages; (3) punitive damages; and (4)  attorneys’ fees and costs.  VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW  