 ILLEGAL WITHHOLDING OF WAGES   32.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and reallege all facts set forth above.   33.  Defendants have misclassified the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated delivery  drivers as independent contractors when they are actually employees under the Connecticut wage  laws.   34.  This misclassification violates Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71a as interpreted by Tianti,  ex rel. Gluck v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 231 Conn. 690, 651 A.2d 1286 (1995).  This  claim is asserted pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72.  35.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and reallege all facts set forth above.   36.  Defendants’ practice of making various unlawful and unauthorized deductions  from the Plaintiffs’ and class members’ compensation violates Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71e.     38.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and reallege all facts set forth above.   39.  As set forth above, Defendants’ practice of requiring Plaintiffs and class members  to pay tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for the right to work for Defendants violates  Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-73.     40.  This claim is brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72.  CONNECTICUT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR LAW   ILLEGAL REFUND OF WAGES FOR FURNISHING EMPLOYMENT   UNJUST ENRICHMENT  