(New York Labor Law: Unpaid Overtime Premium Hourly Wages)  117.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in all  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  118.  At times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were employees and Defendants have  been employers within the meaning of the New York Labor Law §§ 190, 651(2).  119.  Defendants have willfully failed to record, credit, or properly compensate  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class Members for work performed in excess of 40 hours per  workweek.  120.  Defendants have willfully failed to record or compensate Plaintiffs and the Rule  23 Class Members for “off the clock” hours worked in addition to their scheduled shifts.  121.  Defendants failed to pay employees an extra hour of pay at the basic minimum  hourly wage rate for each day when an employee’s shifts exceeded 10 hours, in violation of 12  (Suretyship)  125.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in all  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  126.  By issuing Bonds (“the Bonds”) to each of the Defendants, John Doe Bonding  Companies assumed joint and several liability with Defendants to pay Plaintiffs any and all  wages due and owing to them which Defendants failed to pay.  127.  Pursuant to the terms of each labor and material payment bond issued in  connection with each construction project, each John Doe Bonding Company is required to make  payment to Plaintiffs in an amount not yet determined, plus interest.  27.  Plaintiffs bring FLSA claims on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated  persons who work or have worked for Defendants as hourly employees, between July 29,  2007 and the filing of this Complaint (the “FLSA Class”).   28.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly  compensate plaintiffs, and as such, notice should be sent to the FLSA Class. Upon information  and belief, there are many similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants who  have been underpaid in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of a court  supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join in the present lawsuit. Those  similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and are readily identifiable and can be  located through Defendants’ records.   29.  Plaintiffs also bring New York Labor Law claims on behalf of themselves and a  class of persons under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of all  similarly situated persons who work or have worked for Defendants as hourly employees  between July 29, 2004 and the filing of this Complaint (the “Rule 23 Class”).   31.  The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Class they  seek to represent. Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class work or have worked for Defendants at their  construction sites and have not been fully compensated for all of the work that they have  performed for the benefit of Defendants. Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class have not been paid a  premium for the hours that they have worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs and the  Rule 23 Class have suffered damages, including but not limited to lost regular, overtime, and  “spread of hours” compensation, resulting from Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Defendants have  acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Rule 23 Class, thereby making  declaratory relief with respect to the Rule 23 Class appropriate.   32.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Rule  23 Class.   33.  Defendants have acted or have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to  the Rule 23 Class, thereby making appropriate declaratory relief with respect to the Rule 23  Class as a whole.   35.  Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in class action and  complex labor and employment litigation.   37.  Furthermore, upon information and belief, a class action gives both current and  former employees a vehicle for the vindication of rights they would otherwise be too afraid to  assert.  Current employees fear direct or indirect retaliation at their current job.  Former  employees fear that bringing claims could harm their employment and potential for future  employment.  A class action provides class members who are not named in the complaint a  degree of anonymity which reduces these risks.  38.  All of the work that Plaintiffs, the members of the Rule 23 Class, and the  members of the FLSA Class (collectively, “Class Members”) have performed has been assigned  by Defendants and/or Defendants have been aware of all of the work that Plaintiffs and the Class  Members have performed.   40.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ unlawful conduct described in this  Complaint is pursuant to a corporate policy or practice of attempting to minimize labor costs by  violating the FLSA and the New York Labor Law.   41.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.   42.  Defendants John Doe Bonding Companies 1-20 furnished a Labor and Material  Payment Bond(s) to Defendants in furtherance of one or more of Defendants’ construction  projects, the terms of which insured that John Doe Bonding Companies 1-20 would pay unpaid  wages to the Plaintiffs and the putative class members in the event Defendants failed to pay these  wages.   43.  Plaintiff Moises Sandoval was hired by Defendants in approximately April 2000  as a security guard for a site in Far Rockaway, New York.   45.  Moises has worked as a security guard for Denfendants’ construction sites in Far  Rockaway, Staten Island, and the Bronx, including 168th St and Franklin Ave., 1022 Rev. James  A. Polite Ave., Franklin and Prospect Ave., Stephanie Ave. and Southern Blvd., and 167th St.  and 3rd Ave, and Serviam Gardens at 323 East 198th St.   46.  Since July 29, 2004, Moises has usually worked from approximately 3:00 or 3:30  p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, then 3:30 p.m. Saturday through 7:00 a.m. Monday.     He is not supposed to leave the site for the duration of his shift.  As a result, Moises generally  works 117 to 120 hours per week.   47.  In 2000, when Moises began working at the Rockaway site, there were no  bathroom facilities.  He complained to his bosses, but they ignored him.  He continued to work  there for approximately one year without bathroom facilities.   48.  For working his scheduled hours, Moises was paid $600 per week.  His pay stubs  did not contain an hourly rate, nor did they record the number of hours he worked.   49.  In addition to Moises’s scheduled hours, he has sometimes had to wait up to an  hour past the scheduled end of his shift for his relief to arrive.  He has not been given any extra  compensation for working these extra unscheduled hours.   50.  In fact, upon information and belief, Defendants have not recorded Moises’s  hours at all.  Moises has not been given a timesheet to fill in or a clock to punch.   51.  Defendants have not given Moises any extra compensation for exceeding a spread  of ten hours worked per day.   53.  Defendants’ pattern or practice of violating the FLSA and the New York Labor  Law, as described in this complaint, affected Moises at each site where he worked.   54.  When building or state inspectors visited the site during the day, Moises’s  supervisors would tell him to go to a nearby store to buy something, so as to stay out of the  inspectors’ sight.   55.  Defendants’ failure to pay Moises for all his hours worked has been willful.   56.  Defendants’ failure to pay Moises an overtime premium for his work in excess of  40 hours per week has been willful.   57.  Defendants’ failure to pay Moises for exceeding a spread of ten hours per day has  been willful.  B. Manuel Sandoval   58.  Plaintiff Manuel Sandoval was hired by Defendants in approximately 1990 or  1991 as a building superintendant.   59.  Manuel worked for Defendants from approximately 1990 or 1991 through  September 10, 2008.   60.  From no later than July 29, 2004 until he left his employment with Defendants,  Manuel worked as a security guard for Defendants at construction sites in the New York  metropolitan area, including at 141st St. and 130th St. and 7th Ave. in Manhattan, and 167th St.  and 3rd Ave., 195th St. and Grand Concourse, and Webster Ave. and East 180th St. in the Bronx.   He was supervised by, among other people, a man named Tazo [surname unknown].   62.  For working his scheduled hours Monday through Friday, Manuel was paid $420  per week.  His pay stubs did not contain an hourly rate, nor did they record the number of hours  he worked.   63.  From approximately 2002 until approximately May 2008, for working his  scheduled hours on Saturday through Monday, Manuel received a separate personal check of  $280.   64.  From approximately May 2008 through the end of Manuel’s employment with  Defendants, Defendants paid him only $480 per week for all his hours, including his weekend  work.   65.  Manuel and other workers repeatedly complained to their supervisors, including  Tazo, that their paychecks did not record the number of hours worked.   66.  In addition to Manuel’s scheduled hours, on a number of occasions each month he  had to wait up to an hour past the scheduled end of his shift for his relief to arrive.  He was not  given any extra compensation for working these extra unscheduled hours.   67.  In fact, upon information and belief, Defendants did not record Manuel’s hours at  all.  Manuel was not told to record his hours, nor given a mechanism with which to record them.   68.  Defendants did not give Manuel any extra compensation for exceeding a spread of  ten hours worked per day.   70.  Defendants’ pattern or practice of violating the FLSA and the New York Labor  Law, as described in this complaint, affected Manuel at each site where he worked.   71.  Around 2008, when building or state inspectors visited the site, Manuel’s  supervisors would hide him, allegedly because Defendants lacked a license to employ security  personnel.   72.  Defendants’ failure to pay Manuel for all his hours worked was willful.   73.  Defendants’ failure to pay Manuel an overtime premium for his work in excess of  40 hours per week was willful.   74.  Defendants’ failure to pay Manuel for exceeding a spread of ten hours per day  was willful.  C. Saleh Aldailam   75.  Plaintiff Saleh Aldailam was hired by Defendants in 1987 as a security guard.   76.  Saleh worked for Defendants from approximately 1987 through January 2010,  taking several three- or four-month breaks to return to his native Yemen.   77.  Saleh worked as a security guard for Defendants at various construction sites  throughout the New York metropolitan area, including, among others, West 153rd St. and 8th  Ave., and Serviam Gardens at East 198th St., and 1st Ave. and 168th St.   79.  At approximately noon or 1 p.m. on around July 7, 2008, a dog owned by one of  Galaxy’s managers attacked Saleh and bit him around the right thigh and buttocks.  Saleh was  hospitalized for two days and required 21 stitches to close the wounds.   80.  Many of the sites Saleh worked had no heat, including 153rd St. and 8th Ave.   81.  In the past several years, Saleh’s health has deteriorated. He has begun taking  heart medication and medications to regulate his blood pressure and blood-sugar level.   82.  Saleh often asked Mr. Zervoudis for a day off due to his deteriorating health.  Mr.  Zervoudis, however, told Saleh that if he took a day off he would lose his job.   83.  For example, sometime in 2006, 19 years after beginning his work with  Defendants, Saleh asked Mr. Zervoudis for a day off.  Mr. Zervoudis refused, saying, “This is  our way of working.  If you are not interested, go home.”   84.  Finally, as a response to Saleh’s heart condition, beginning sometime in 2009  through January 2010, Saleh was given Fridays off.  He still worked approximately 104 hours  per week.   85.  For working his scheduled hours, Saleh was paid $600 per week in gross salary  plus $200 per week in “expenses.”  His pay stubs did not contain an hourly rate, nor did they  record the number of hours he worked.   87.  In fact, upon information and belief, Defendants did not record Saleh’s hours at  all.  Saleh was not told to record his hours, nor given a mechanism with which to record them..   88.  Defendants did not give Saleh any extra compensation for exceeding a spread of  ten hours worked per day.   89.  Defendants’ pattern or practice of violating the FLSA and the New York Labor  Law, as described in this complaint, affected Saleh at each site where he worked.   90.  Within the last several years, Saleh’s supervisors told him that if anyone asked  him about his hours and wages, he should respond that he worked 8 hours per day and was paid  $10 per hour.   91.  Defendants’ failure to pay Saleh for all his hours worked was willful.   92.  Defendants’ failure to pay Saleh an overtime premium for his work in excess of  40 hours per week was willful.   93.  Defendants’ failure to pay Saleh for exceeding a spread of ten hours per day was  willful.  D. Emilio Torres   94.  Plaintiff Emilio Torres was hired by Defendants in 2006 as a machine operator.   95.  Torres worked for Defendants from approximately 2006 through April 14, 2010,  at which point he was injured on the job.   97.  Though Torres’s hours varied from site to site, he was usually scheduled to work  from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday.  At certain sites, Torres  would work until 5:00 or 7:00 p.m. several times a week.  In addition, Torres would sometimes  work 10:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m. on Sundays.   98.  For working his scheduled hours each day, Torres was, at first paid, $150 per day,  then later $175 and, finally, $200 per day.   A. Moises Sandoval  