 [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective]   18.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.   19.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of overtime pay and failure to provide the  required wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statement would financially injure Plaintiff  and similarly situated employees and violate state and federal laws.    20.  From June 16, 2013 to February 22, 2016, Plaintiff Lan was hired by Defendants  to work as a bus driver for Defendants’ adult day care business located at 32-29 Blossom Avenue,  Flushing, New York 11355. From June 16, 2013 to February 22, 2016, Plaintiff Lan worked as  both driver and dispatcher for Defendants.   21.  Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff for overtime wages according to state  and federal laws.    22.  From June 16, 2013 until October, 2014, Plaintiff Lan worked from 6:40 a.m. to  approximately 4:00 p.m., six days per week. Plaintiff typically had Sunday off during this period,  except for March 9, 2014 through August 3, 2014. Plaintiff worked approximately 56 hours per  week during this period.    23.  From March 9, 2014 to August 3, 2014, Plaintiff Lan worked additionally on  Sundays from 6:40 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Plaintiff worked extra 21 Sundays during this period.   24.  From November, 2014 to February 22, 2016, Plaintiff Lan worked from 7:00 a.m.  to approximately 3:30 p.m., six days per week. Plaintiff typically had Sundays off during this  period. Plaintiff therefore worked approximately 51 hours per week.    25.  From June 16, 2013 to July, 2013, Plaintiff was paid a flat salary of $2,750 per  month.  6   26.  From August 2013 to October, 2013, Plaintiff was paid a flat salary of $2,500 per  month.   27.  From November, 2013 to March, 2014, Plaintiff was paid a flat salary of $2,700  per month.   28.  From April 2014 to October, 2014, Plaintiff was paid a flat salary of $3,000 per  month.   29.  From November, 2014 to February, 22, 2016, Plaintiff was paid a flat salary of  $2,800 per month.   30.  At the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants, the  Defendants promised the Plaintiff that they were going to pay him an hourly rate of $15 per hour.  Defendants never paid the Plaintiff at this rate.   31.  From June 16, 2013 to October, 2014, Defendants did not maintain any time records  of the Plaintiff’s hours worked.    32.  From November, 2014 to February 22, 2016, Defendants used punch cards to  record Plaintiff’s hours worked.  However, Defendants frequently required Plaintiff to work before  punching in, and also after punching out.    33.  Plaintiff was not allowed to take any breaks longer than 30 minutes during his  shifts.   34.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for overtime compensation according to  state and federal laws, or according to the rate of compensation that the Defendants promised to  Plaintiff pursuant to state common law theories of breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust  enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.    35.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with any wage notices at the time of his hiring.   7   36.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.    37.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was not exempt under federal and state  laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime.     38.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff or other Class members with written notices  about the terms and conditions of their employment upon hire in relation to their rate of pay, regular  pay cycle and rate of overtime pay. These notices were similarly not provided upon Plaintiff’s and  other Class members’ pay increase(s).    39.  Defendants committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs, and the Class.  40.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and  one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in violation of the FLSA  and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor  Regulations.    41.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other and former non- exempt employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants for up to the last three (3)  years, through entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective Action Period”) and who failed to  receive overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week (the  “Collective Action Members”), and have been subject to the same common decision, policy, and  8  plan to not provide required wage notices at the time of hiring, in contravention to federal and state  labor laws.    42.  Upon information and belief, the Collection Action Members are so numerous the  joinder of all members is impracticable. The identity and precise number of such persons are  unknown, and the facts upon which the calculations of that number may be ascertained are  presently within the sole control of the Defendants. Upon information and belief, there are more  than thirty (30) Collective Action members, who have worked for or have continued to work for  the Defendants during the Collective Action Period, most of whom would not likely file individual  suits because they fear retaliation, lack adequate financial resources, access to attorneys, or  knowledge of their claims. Therefore, Plaintiff submits that this case should be certified as a  collection action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).    43.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action  Members, and has retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the field of employment  law and class action litigation. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with those  members of this collective action.   44.  This action should be certified as collective action because the prosecution of  separate action by individual members of the collective action would risk creating either  inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members of this class that would as  a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not party to the adjudication,  or subsequently impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.    45.  A collective action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore,  inasmuch as the damages suffered by individual Collective Action Members may be relatively  9  small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it virtually impossible for the  members of the collective action to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them. There  will be no difficulty in the management of this action as collective action.    46.  Questions of law and fact common to members of the collective action predominate  over questions that may affect only individual members because Defendants have acted on grounds  generally applicable to all members. Among the questions of fact common to Plaintiff and other  Collective Action Members are:   a. Whether the Defendants employed Collective Action members within the meaning of  the FLSA;   b. Whether the Defendants failed to pay the Collective Action Members overtime wages  for all hours worked above forty (40) each workweek in violation of the FLSA and the  regulation promulgated thereunder;   c. Whether the Defendants’ violations of the FLSA are willful as that terms is used within  the context of the FLSA; and,   d. Whether the Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not  limited to compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements  and attorneys’ fees.    47.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.    48.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by  Defendants’ unlawful conduct.   10   49.  Plaintiff brings his NYLL claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.  R. C. P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt persons employed by Defendants at Greater New  York Social and Health Adult Day Care Center, LLC on or after the date that is six years before  the filing of the Complaint in this case as defined herein (the “Class Period”).    50.  All said persons, including the 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 positions held,  and the rate of pay for each Class Member is also determinable from Defendants’ records. For  purpose 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 said F.R.C.P 23.    51.  The proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,  and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parities and the Court. Although the  precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts on which the calculation of the number  is presently within the sole control of the Defendants, upon information and belief, there are more  than thirty (30) members of the class.    52.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those claims which could be alleged by any member  of the  Class,  and  the  relief  sought  is  typical  of  the  relief  that  would  be  sought  by  each  member  of  the  Class  in  separate  actions.  All the Class members were subject to the same  corporate practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, of failing to pay minimum wage, and overtime  compensation. Defendants’ corporation wide policies and practices, including  but  not  limited  to   their  failure  to provide a wage notice at the time of hiring, affected all Class members similarly,  and Defendants benefited from the same type of unfair and/ or wrongful acts as to each Class  11  member. Plaintiff and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries and damages arising  from the same unlawful policies, practices and procedures.    53.  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 representing plaintiffs in both class action and wage and hour employment litigation  cases.     54.  A  class  action  is  superior  to  other  available  methods  for  the  fair  and  efficient  adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where  individual Class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute corporate   defendants.  Class  action  treatment  will  permit  a  large  number  of  similarly situated persons  to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently,  and  without  the   unnecessary  duplication  of  efforts and expenses that numerous individual actions engender. The  losses, injuries, and damages suffered by each of the individual Class members are small in the  sense pertinent to a class action analysis, thus the expenses and burden of individual litigation  would make it extremely difficult or impossible for the individual Class members to redress the  wrongs done to them.  Further, important public interests will be served by addressing the matter  as a class action.  The  adjudication  of  individual  litigation  claims would result in a great  expenditure  of  Court  and  public  resources;  however,  treating  the  claims  as  a  class action  would result in a significant saving of these costs.  The prosecution of separate actions by  individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications  with respect to the individual members of the Class, establishing incompatible standards of  conduct for Defendants and resulting in the impairment of class  members’  rights  and  the   disposition  of  their  interests  through  actions  to  which they were not parties.  The issues in this  12  action can be decided by means of common, class-wide proof.  In  addition,  if  appropriate,  the   Court  can,  and  is  empowered  to, fashion methods to efficiently manage this action as a class  action.     55.  Upon  information  and  belief,  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.     56.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over  any questions affecting only individual class members, including:    a. Whether Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Class within the meaning of the New  York law;   b. Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to overtime under the New York Labor  Law;    c. Whether the Defendants provided wage notices at the time of hiring to Plaintiff and class  members as required by the NYLL;  d. Whether the Defendants provided wage statement to Plaintiff and class members as  required by the NYLL  e. At what common rate, or rates subject to common method of calculation were and are  the Defendants required to pay the Class members for their work  13  57.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    58.  The FLSA provides that no employer engaged in commerce shall employ a covered  employee for a work week longer than forty (40) hours unless such employee receives  compensation for employment in excess of forty (40) hours at a rate not less than one and one-half  times the regular rate at which he or she is employed, or one and one-half times the minimum  wage, whichever is greater. 29 USC §207(a).    59.  The  FLSA  provides  that  any  employer  who  violates  the  provisions  of  29   U.S.C. §207 shall be liable to the employees affected in the amount of their unpaid overtime  compensation,  and  in  an  additional  equal  amount  as  liquidated  damages.  29 USC §216(b).    60.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective their overtime pay  violated the FLSA.    61.  At all relevant times, Defendants had, and continue to have, a policy of practice of  refusing  to  pay  overtime  compensation  at  the  statutory  rate  of  time-and-a-half  to the Plaintiff  and the Collective Action Members for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours  per   workweek,  which  violated  and  continues  to  violate  the  FLSA,  29  U.S.C. §§201, et seq.,  including 29 U.S.C. §§207(a)(1) and 215(a).    62.  The FLSA and supporting regulations required employers to notify employees of  employment law requires employers to notify employment law requirements. 29 C.F.R. §516.4.   14   63.  Defendants  willfully  failed  to  notify  the Plaintiff  and the  FLSA  Collective  of   the requirements  of  the  employment  laws  in  order  to  facilitate  their  exploitation  of Plaintiff’s  and FLSA Collectives’ labor.    64.  Defendants  knowingly  and  willfully  disregarded  the  provisions  of  the  FLSA   as evidenced by their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and Collective Class Members the  statutory overtime rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week  when they knew or should have known such was due and that failing to do so would financially  injure the Plaintiff and Collective Action members.   65.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    66.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay proper overtime compensation shall be liable, in addition to the amount of any underpayments,  for liquidated damages equal to the total of such under-payments found to be due the employee.   67.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class their overtime pays  violated the NYLL. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class was not in good  faith.  68.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.  15   69.  The Defendants failed to furnish to the Plaintiff at the time of hiring a notice  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 in  accordance with section one hundred ninety-one of this article; 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; the telephone number of  the employer, and anything otherwise required by law; in violation of the NYLL, § 195(1).   70.  Due to the Defendants’ violation of the NYLL, § 195(1), the Plaintiff is entitled to  recover from the Defendants liquidated damages of $50.00 per workweek that the violation  occurred, up to a maximum of $2,500.00, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs and disbursements  of the action, pursuant to the NYLL, § 198(1-b).   71.  The Defendants failed to furnish with each wage payment a statement listing: 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; the regular hourly rate or rates of pay; the  overtime rate or rates of pay; the number of regular hours worked, and the number of overtime  hours worked; gross wages; deductions; allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage;  and net wages; in violation of the NYLL, § 195(3).   72.  Due to the Defendants’ violation of the NYLL, § 195(3), the Plaintiff is entitled to  recover from the Defendants liquidated damages of $100.00 per workweek that the violation  occurred, up to a maximum of $2,500.00, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs and disbursements  of the action, pursuant to the NYLL, § 198(1-d).  16   73.  The Defendants’ NYLL violations have caused the Plaintiff irreparable harm for  which there is no adequate remedy at law.  74.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   75.  Defendants have engaged in a pattern, practice, and policy of failing to compensate  Plaintiff at an agreed hourly regular rate for all hours either worked or required to be compensated.   76.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff his wages at their agreed hourly regular rates  for all hours worked or required to be compensated by law violates the New York Labor Law  Article 6, §§ 190 et seq..   77.  Due to Defendants’ violations of New York Labor Law, Plaintiff is entitled to  recover from Defendants their unpaid wages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable  attorneys’ fees, and the costs of the action, pursuant to New York Labor Law Article 6, § 198.  78.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   79.  Defendants collectively entered into oral, written, and/or implied contracts with the  Plaintiff and each party’s acceptance was supported by good and valuable consideration.   80.  Plaintiff fulfilled his contractual obligations by laboring for the benefit of  Defendants.   81.  Defendants breached the contracts with Plaintiff by failing to pay contractually  established wages for work performed by the Plaintiff.  17   82.  Because of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiff suffered from a loss of  expected wages.   83.  Plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages equal to the amount specified in oral,  written, and/or implied contracts entered with Defendants, plus interest.  84.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   85.  Defendants collectively entered into written and/or oral contracts with Plaintiff and  each party’s acceptance was supported by good and valuable consideration.   86.  Plaintiff fulfilled his contractual obligations by laboring for the benefit of  Defendants.   87.  Defendants, in bad faith, denied Plaintiff the benefit of the contract by failing to  pay the contractually established wages.   88.  Defendants’ bad faith is demonstrated by Defendant’s failure to pay contractually  required wages to the detriment of Plaintiff.   89.  Because of Defendants’ breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair  dealing, Plaintiff suffered from a loss of expected wages.   90.  Plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages equal to the amount specified in contracts  entered with Defendants, plus interest.   91.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   92.  By laboring at Defendants’ center, Plaintiff provided benefits to Defendants.   93.  Plaintiff expected to be compensated for the labor he provided to Defendants.  Defendants’ unjust failure to pay Plaintiff’s wages for all labor performed constituted a distinct  detriment to the Plaintiff.   94.  Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to money damages equal to the reasonable value  of the labor provided to Defendants, plus interest.  Prayer For Relief  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the FLSA collective plaintiffs and rule  23 class, respectfully requests that this court enter a judgment providing the following relief:    a)      Authorizing plaintiff at the earliest possible time to give notice of this collective  action, or that the court issue such notice, to all persons who are presently, or have been  employed by defendants as non-exempt tipped or non-tipped employees. Such notice shall  inform them that the civil notice has been filed, of the nature of the action, of their right to  join this lawsuit if they believe they were denied proper hourly compensation and premium  overtime wages;   b)     Certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure;   c)      Designation of Plaintiff as representatives of the Rule 23 Class, and counsel of record  as Class counsel;   d)      Certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to FLSA;   19  e)        Issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all similarly situated members  of the FLSA opt-in class, apprising them of the pendency of this action, and permitting  them to assert timely FLSA claims and state claims in this action by filing individual  Consent to Sue forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and appointing Plaintiff and his  counsel to represent the Collective Action Members;    f)       A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under  FLSA and New York Labor Law;   g)      An injunction against Greater New York Social and Health Adult Day Care Center,  LLC, its officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons  acting in concert with them as provided by law, from engaging in each of unlawful practices  and policies set forth herein;   h)      An award of unpaid overtime wages due under FLSA and New York Labor Law;   i)         An award of damages for Defendants’ failure to provide wage notice at the time of  hiring and failure to provide wage statement as required under the New York Labor Law.  j)       An award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’  knowing and willful failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216;   k)      An award of liquidated and/ or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’ willful  failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to New York Labor Law;   l)  An award of damages and/or punitive damages to the Plaintiff damages for unpaid  wages;  m)  An award of damages and liquidated damages to the Plaintiff for the Defendants’  unlawful failure to pay Plaintiff’s agreed upon wages  n)       An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’  20  and expert fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and NYLL §§198 and 663;   o)      The cost and disbursements of this action;   p)      An award of prejudgment and post-judgment fees;    q)      Providing that if any amounts remain unpaid upon the expiration of ninety days  following the issuance of judgment, or ninety days after expiration of the time to appeal  and no appeal is then pending, whichever is later, the total amount of judgment shall  automatically increase by fifteen percent, as required by NYLL §198(4); and   r)       Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just,  and proper.    [Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing]   [New York Labor Law Article 6 – Breach of Contract]   [New York Labor Law Article 6 – Failure to Pay Agreed-Upon Wages]   [Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit]  18   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Overtime Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Failure to Provide Wage  Notice at the Time of Hiring and Failure to Provide Wage Statement]  