17.   Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.   18.   Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wages, 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.    19.   From June 1996 to August 3, 2016, Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a  truck loader for Defendants’ wholesale business located at 56-71 49th Place, Maspeth, NY  11378.   20.   From June 1996 to December 2014 Plaintiff worked from 5:00 a.m. until 4:00 or  5:00 p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.  Plaintiff worked from 5:00 a.m. until 8:00 or  5  9:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.  Plaintiff was off one day each week on  Sundays.  Plaintiff worked seventy-eight (78) to eighty-four (84) hours each week.   21.   From January 2015 to August 3, 2016, Plaintiff worked from 5:00 a.m. until 5:00  or 6:00 p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.  Plaintiff worked from 5:00 a.m. until 6:00  to 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.  Plaintiff was off one day each week on  Sundays.  Plaintiff worked seventy-two (72) to eighty-one (81) hours each week.   22.    During all relevant periods, Plaintiff was paid a flat weekly rate, in cash.   23.    In 2011, Plaintiff was paid $2,100 per month.  Every six month after that, Plaintiff  received a raise of $50 per month.   24.    By 2016, Plaintiff was paid $2,600 per month.   25.    Defendants did not compensate either Plaintiff minimum or overtime wages  according to state and federal laws.    26.    Plaintiff was required by the Defendants to sign in after he had already started  working and sign out prior to his departure time.    27.    Defendants kept these records in order to appear as if they were in compliance  with the law.  In reality, these records were not accurate, and Defendant paid Plaintiff flat rates  regardless of his hours worked.    28.   Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with any wage notices at the time of his  hiring.    29.   Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.    30.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was not exempt under federal and state  laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime.    6   31.   Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and 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).    32.   Defendants committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiff, the FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class.  33.   Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA minimum wages, or the  New York State minimum wages, in violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the  supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations.    34.  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.    35.   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 whom  failed to receive minimum wages and 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 plan to not provide required wage notices at the time of hiring, in  contravention to federal and state labor laws.   7   36.   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 forty (40) 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).    37.   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.   38.   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.    39.   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  small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it virtually impossible for the  8  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.    40.   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 the minimum  wage in violation of the FLSA and the regulations promulgated thereunder  c. 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;   d. Whether the Defendants’ violations of the FLSA are willful as that terms is used within  the context of the FLSA; and,   e. 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.    41.   Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.    42.   Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by  Defendants’ unlawful conduct.   9  43.   Plaintiff bring 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 MG  Wholesale Distribution Inc. on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the  Complaint in this case as defined herein (the “Class Period”).    44.   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.    45.   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 forty (40) members of the class.    46.   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  10  as to each Class member. Plaintiff and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries and  damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices and procedures.    47.   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.     48.   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  11  this 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.     49.   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.     50.   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 Defendants paid Plaintiff and Class members the New York minimum wage  for all hours worked;  c. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to overtime under the New York  Labor Law;    d. Whether the Defendants provided wage notices at the time of hiring to Plaintiff and  class members as required by the NYLL;  e. Whether the Defendants provided wage statement to Plaintiff and class members as  required by the NYLL  12  f. 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  51.   Plaintiff  re-alleges  and  incorporates  by  reference  all  preceding  paragraphs  as   though fully set forth herein.    52.   At all relevant times, upon information and belief, Defendants have been, and  continue to  be,  “employers”  engaged  in  interstate  “commerce”  and/or  in  the  production  of   “goods”  for  “commerce,”  within  the  meaning  of  the  FLSA,  29  U.S.C.  §§206(a) and  §§207(a). Further, Plaintiff is covered within the meaning of FLSA, U.S.C. §§206(a) and 207(a).    53.   At all relevant times, Defendants employed “employees” including Plaintiff,  within the meaning of FLSA.    54.   Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants have had gross  revenues in excess of $500,000.    55.   The FLSA provides that any employer engaged in commerce shall pay employees  the applicable minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).    56.   At  all  relevant  times,  Defendants  had  a  policy  and  practice  of  refusing  to   pay  the statutory minimum wage to Plaintiff, and the collective action members, for some or all  of the hours they worked.    57.   The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C.  §206 shall  be  liable  to  the  employees  affected  in  the  amount  of  their  unpaid  minimum  compensation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.   13   58.   Defendants  knowingly  and  willfully  disregarded  the  provisions  of  the  FLSA   as evidenced  by  failing  to  compensate  Plaintiff and  Collective  Class  Members  at  the  statutory minimum wage when they knew or should have known such was due and that failing to  do so would financially injure Plaintiff and Collective Action members.   59.   Plaintiff  re-alleges  and  incorporates  by  reference  all  preceding  paragraphs  as   though fully set forth herein.    60.   At all relevant times, plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the meaning of  New York Labor Law §§2 and 651.    61.   Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay the minimum wage 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.    62.    Defendants knowingly and willfully violated Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ rights  by failing to pay them minimum wages in the lawful amount for hours worked.   63.   Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    64.   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- 14  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).    65.   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).    66.   Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective their overtime pay  violated the FLSA.    67.   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 Plaintiff  and 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).    68.   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.    69.    Defendants  willfully  failed  to  notify  Plaintiff  and  FLSA  Collective  of  the  requirements  of  the  employment  laws  in  order  to  facilitate  their  exploitation  of Plaintiff’s  and FLSA Collectives’ labor.    70.    Defendants  knowingly  and  willfully  disregarded  the  provisions  of  the  FLSA   as evidenced by their failure to compensate 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  Plaintiff and Collective Action members.   15  71.    Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.    72.     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.    73.    Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class their overtime pay  violated the NYLL.    74.    Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class was not in good faith.   75.     Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    76.    The NYLL requires employers to pay an extra hour’s pay for every day that an  employee works an interval in excess of ten hours pursuant to NYLL §§190, et seq., and §§650,  et seq., and New York State Department of Labor regulations §146-1.6.    77.     Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class spread-of-hours pay was  not in good faith.   78.    Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Collective Action  16  Members and members of the Class repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of the  preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.   79.    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).   80.    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).   81.    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).   82.    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  17  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).   83.    The Defendants’ NYLL violations have caused the Plaintiff irreparable harm for  which there is no adequate remedy at law.  Prayer For Relief  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and the FLSA collective plaintiffs and  rule 23 class, respectfully request 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;   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;    18  f)       A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful  under FLSA and New York Labor Law;   g)      An injunction against MG Wholesale Distribution Inc., 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 wages and minimum wages due Plaintiff and the Collective  Action members under the FLSA and New York Labor Law, plus compensatory and  liquidated damages in the amount of twenty five percent under NYLL §§190 et seq.,  §§650 et seq., and one hundred percent after April 9, 2011 under NY Wage Theft  Prevention Act, and interest;   i)       An award of unpaid overtime wages due under FLSA and New York Labor Law;   j)       An award of unpaid “spread of hours” premium due under the New York Labor  Law;  k)      An award of damages for Defendants’ failure to provide wage notice at the time  of hiring as required under the New York Labor Law;  l)       An award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’  knowing and willful failure to pay wages, minimum wages and overtime compensation  pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216;   m)      An award of liquidated and/ or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’ willful  failure to pay wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation, and “spread of hours”  premium pursuant to New York Labor Law;   n)      An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’  19  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.    [Violation of New York Labor Law—Spread of Time 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]   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Overtime Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class]  