1.7 & 1.8 (2011).   28.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207 & 216(b), Plaintiff brings her First and Second  Causes of Action as a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of herself and the following  collective:  All persons employed by Defendants at any time since June 19, 2014  and through the entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective  Action Period”) who worked as chauffeurs (the “Collective Action  Members”).   29.  A collective action is appropriate in this circumstance because Plaintiff and the  Collective Action Members are similarly situated, in that they were all subjected to Defendants’  illegal policies of failing to pay overtime premiums for all work performed in excess of forty (40)  hours each week.  As a result of these policies, Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members did  not receive the legally-required overtime premium payments for all hours worked in excess of  forty (40) hours per week.   30.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members have substantially similar job duties  and were paid pursuant to a similar, if not the same, payment structure.  31.  Pursuant to the NYLL, Plaintiff brings her Third through Sixth Causes of Action  under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and the following class:  All persons employed by Defendants in New York at any time since  June 19, 2011 and through the entry of judgment in this case (the  “Class Period”) who worked as non-management employees (the  “Class Members”).   32.  The Class Members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the Class  Members are determinable from the records of Defendants. 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 any means permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.   7   33.  The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   34.  Upon information and belief, there are in excess of forty (40) Class Members.   35.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class Members and predominate  over any questions solely affecting individual Class Members. Such common questions will  determine Defendants’ liability to all (or nearly all) Class Members. These common questions  include:  a.  whether Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Class Members within the meaning  of the NYLL;  b. whether Defendants failed to keep true and accurate time records for all hours  worked by Plaintiff and the Class Members;  c. whether Defendants failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members  overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  workweek;  d. whether Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the Class Members for the  cost of repairs, tickets and accidents;  e. whether Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the Class Members for all  uniform purchase and maintenance expenses;  f. whether Defendants failed to provide accurate wage notice to Plaintiff and Class  Members at the beginning of their employment and/or on February 1 of each year  as required by the NYLL;  g. whether Defendants failed to provide accurate wage statements to Plaintiff and  Class Members with each payment of wages as required by the NYLL;   h. whether Defendants’ failure to properly pay Plaintiff and the Class Members lacked  8  a good faith basis; and  i. whether Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not  limited  to compensatory damages, liquidated damages, interest, costs and  disbursements and attorneys’ fees.   36.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class Members’ claims. Plaintiff, like all Class  Members, was a chauffeur of Defendants who worked for Defendants pursuant to their corporate  policies. Plaintiff, like all Class Members, was, inter alia, not paid overtime premium pay for hours  worked over forty (40) hours in a given workweek; not reimbursed for certain business expenses,  including the cost of repairs, tickets and accidents; not reimbursed for uniform purchase and  maintenance expenses; not provided proper wage statements with each of her wage payments; and  not provided proper wage notice when hired or before February 1 of each year. If Defendants are  liable to Plaintiff for the claims enumerated in this Complaint, they are also liable to all Class  Members.   37.  Plaintiff and her Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Class. There are  no conflicts between Plaintiff and the Class Members, and Plaintiff brings this lawsuit out of a  desire to help all Class Members, not merely out of a desire to recover her own damages.   38.  Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced class action litigators who are well-prepared to  represent the interests of the Class Members.   39.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation.     40.  Defendants are sophisticated parties with substantial resources. The individual  plaintiff lacks the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against  corporate defendants.    9   41.  The individual members of the Class have no interest or capacity to bring separate  actions; Plaintiff is unaware of any other currently pending litigation concerning this controversy;  it is desirable to concentrate the litigation in one case; and there are no likely difficulties that will  arise in managing the class action.  42. At all relevant times, Defendants have been in the car service business. According  to Defendants’ website, “[s]ince its founding in 1968, two generations of the Farrell family have  carried on our reputation for anticipating and exceeding the needs of those with discriminating  tastes…the second generation of the Farrell Family continues to operate the company based on its  founding principles. Farrell Limousine Service offers a variety of high quality, luxury vehicles that  meet your every need, including limousines, town cars, SUVs, and an ever-growing stable of  environmentally friendly and hybrid vehicles.” (http://www.farrellslimousine.com/about/).    43. Upon information and belief, most of the vehicles in Defendants’ fifty to eighty  (50-80) car fleet are sedans.    44.  Upon information and belief, Defendants have employed between fifty (50) and  one hundred (100) drivers at any given time during the Relevant Time Period.    45.  Defendants M. Farrell, P. Farrell and U. Farrell are frequent presences in the Farrell  Limousine garage and take an active role in ensuring that the business is run in accordance with  their policies and procedures.    46.  Plaintiff Lee observed the Individual Defendants in the dispatcher’s room and  elsewhere in the Farrell Limousine building on a daily basis and they occasionally gave drivers  job assignments.    10   47.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ employees Randy Ramirez, Paul Leone  and Paul Barcellos are current and former managers at Farrell Limousine. Upon information and  belief, the Individual Defendants have been in constant contact with Ramirez, Leone, Barcellos  and other managers to ensure that the business is operating in accordance with their standards and  policies.   Plaintiff’s Work for Defendants   48.  Plaintiff Lee has worked for Defendants as a chauffeur from in or around September  19, 2009 through the present (the “Lee Employment Period”).     49.  As a chauffeur, Lee primarily drives sedans, SUVs, vans and stretch limousines.  While she occasionally drives a sixteen (16) passenger van, she primarily drives vehicles seating  eight (8) passengers or fewer, including the driver, on a daily basis. Plaintiff Lee drives in New  York and throughout the Northeast.    50.  From the start of the Lee Employment Period to in or around early 2016, Plaintiff  Lee typically worked five to seven (5-7) days per week for a total of approximately fifty to sixty  (50-60), and sometimes up to seventy (70), hours per week. In or around early 2016, Plaintiff Lee  became a part-time employee. Although she was scheduled to work four (4) days per week,  Plaintiff Lee frequently worked five (5) or six (6), and sometimes seven (7) days per week when  Defendants asked if she was available to work, for a total of between thirty (30) and forty-eight  (48) hours per week.  Although Plaintiff Lee was typically scheduled to work between 12:00 pm  and 8:00 pm, she sometimes worked as late as 11:00 pm or 12:00 am, depending on her clients’  needs.   51.  Throughout the Lee Employment Period, Plaintiff Lee received job assignments  from Defendants’ dispatchers and, occasionally, from the Individual Defendants themselves.  11  Plaintiff Lee observed each of the Individual Defendants, M. Farrell, P. Farrell and U. Farrell,  supervising employees and overseeing the operation of the business.     52.  Plaintiff alleges that throughout her employment with Defendants, she has received  the New York State minimum wage for time spent waiting for jobs from the dispatcher. Once Lee  receives a job, her hourly rate increases depending on the type of vehicle that she is assigned. For  example, Lee receives fifteen dollars ($15.00) per hour to drive a sedan, eighteen dollars ($18.00)  per hour to drive an SUV or stretch limousine and twenty-two dollars ($22.00) per hour to drive a  Mercedes-Benz. Plaintiff alleges that her pay drops down to minimum wage for time spent on  standby between jobs. Throughout the Lee Employment Period, Plaintiff Lee has received her  wages entirely in check.    53.  Throughout the Lee Employment Period, Defendants kept track of Lee’s hours  worked by requiring her to punch in and out on a timeclock located next to the dispatcher’s office.  Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that once she finds her car in the garage after receiving an  assignment, she signs in using an iPad and uses the device to indicate when she is on location,  when a passenger comes onboard, when she makes a stop and when she has completed the job.    54.  Although Plaintiff Lee frequently worked well in excess of forty (40) hours per  week, she was paid her regular hourly rate for all hours for which she received compensation.   Plaintiff alleges that Defendants began paying overtime premiums of one and one-half (1.5) times  her regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek in or around late  2015 or early 2016, presumably in response to a previously filed lawsuit against Defendants  alleging similar violations to the ones complained of herein.    55.  Plaintiff alleges that on at least two (2) occasions, she was required to pay Randy  Ramirez, a manager, for tickets that she received while driving one of Defendants’ vehicles.  12  Plaintiff is further aware that other drivers, including Ed Weinberg, were similarly required to pay  Defendants out of pocket for any damage to vehicles incurred on the job or for tickets they received  while driving a Farrell vehicle.     56.  Plaintiff was required to wear a suit, white shirt, dress shoes and a blue tie on the  job. Although Defendants provided the ties free of charge, Defendants did not reimburse her for  the costs of purchasing or maintaining the remainder of her uniform, certain components of which  required dry cleaning.    57.  Plaintiff Lee’s paystubs did not show an overtime rate from the start of her  employment with Defendants through around late 2015. Additionally, while Plaintiff was required  to sign a sheet of paper each year containing her hourly rate, she did not receive a wage notice  showing her overtime rate. Defendants thus failed to provide Plaintiff with proper wage notices  and wage statements.   Defendants’ Unlawful Corporate Policies   58.  Plaintiff and the Class Members were all paid pursuant to the same corporate  policies of Defendants, including paying straight-time rates for all hours paid and failing to pay  overtime premiums even though Plaintiff and the Class Members typically work well in excess of  forty (40) hours per week.   59.  Plaintiff has spoken with other drivers of Defendants, who similarly worked in  excess of forty (40) hours during the Class Period and were similarly not paid overtime premiums  for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class  Members overtime compensation of one and one-half (1.5) times their regular hourly rate for all  hours worked over forty (40) hours per week was a corporate policy of Defendants, which applied  to all of their hourly employees throughout the relevant period.   13   60.  Plaintiff has spoken with other employees of Defendants who similarly did not  receive a proper wage statement with each payment of wages showing their overtime rates.   Defendants’ failure to provide proper wage statements in accordance with the requirements of the  NYLL was a corporate policy that applied to all hourly employees throughout the relevant time  period.   61.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and the Class Members with proper wage  notices at the time of hire or by February 1 of each year showing their overtime rates.     62.  Upon information and belief, throughout the Class Period and continuing to today,  Defendants have failed to maintain accurate and sufficient time and payroll records or provide  such records to employees.    63.  Throughout the Class Period and, upon information and belief, continuing until  today, Defendants have likewise employed other individuals like Plaintiff in positions that require  little skill and no capital investment. Upon information and belief, such individuals were not paid  time and one-half when working in excess of forty (40) hours per week.  64.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Collective Action Members, repeats and  realleges each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and  effect as though fully set forth herein.   65.  Defendants violated the FLSA overtime rights of Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Members by improperly treating them as exempt from the FLSA when they performed non-exempt  duties and failing to pay overtime premiums of one and one-half (1.5) times employees’ regular  hourly rates for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.  14   66.  By failing to pay overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular  rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week, Defendants have violated and  continue to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a)(1) and  215(a)(2).   67.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   68.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime caused Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Members to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon. Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members  are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime premium compensation, damages  for unreasonably delayed payment of wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and  costs and disbursements of the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  69.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges each  and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though  fully set forth herein.   70.  Defendants violated the NYLL overtime rights of the Plaintiff and the Class  Members by improperly treating them as exempt from the NYLL when they performed non- exempt duties and failing to pay overtime premiums consisting of one and one-half (1.5) times  employees’ regular hourly rates for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.   71.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ rights by failing  to pay overtime compensation at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of  15  pay for hours worked in excess of 40 each week, in violation of the NYLL and regulations  promulgated thereunder.   72.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime premium compensation caused Plaintiff and  the Class Members to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon. Plaintiff and the Class Members  are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime compensation, damages for  unreasonably delayed payment of wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs  and disbursements of the action pursuant to NYLL §§ 663(1) et seq.  73.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges each  and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though  fully set forth herein.   74.  Defendants have forced Plaintiff and the Class Members to pay to Defendants out- of-pocket expenses of Defendants’ business, specifically the cost of repairs, tickets and accidents.   Accordingly, Defendants are required to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members for all  business expenses that Defendants wrongly made Plaintiff and the Class Members cover.   75.  Defendants’ improper business expenses charged to Plaintiff caused Plaintiff and  the Class Members to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon.  Plaintiff and the Class Members  are entitled to recover from Defendants the amount that Defendants took from their wages in the  form of deductions, damages for unreasonably delayed payment of wages liquidated damages,  reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements of the action pursuant to NYLL § 663(I)  et al.  16  76.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges each  and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though  fully set forth herein.   77.  Defendants willfully violated the rights of the Plaintiff and the Class Members by  failing to reimburse them for the purchase of their required uniforms, and by failing to provide  them with uniform maintenance pay, in violation of the NYLL §§ 650, et seq., and the regulations  promulgated thereunder including N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. tit. 12, §§ 137-1.8 (2009), 146-  78.  Defendants’ uniform violations caused Plaintiff and the Class Members to suffer  loss of wages and interest thereon. Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to recover from  Defendants the amount that Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and Class Members for the  purchase of their uniforms and the amount that they failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for  the maintenance of such uniforms, damages for unreasonably delayed payment of wages,  liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements of the action pursuant  to NYLL § 663(I) et al.  79.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges each  and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though  fully set forth herein.   80.  Defendants have willfully failed to supply Plaintiff and the Class Members a proper  17  wage statement as required by Article 6, § 195(3).     81.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per employee for each  workweek that the violations occurred or continue to occur, or a total of five thousand dollars  ($5,000) per employee, as provided for by NYLL §§ 198(1-d) liquidated damages as provided for  by the NYLL, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and  injunctive and declaratory relief.  82.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges each  and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though  fully set forth herein.   83.  Defendant has willfully failed to supply Plaintiff and the Class Members notice as  required by Article 6, § 195, on the date of hire and February 1 of each year, in English or in the  language identified by Plaintiff and the Class Members as their primary language, containing  Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour,  shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; hourly rate or rates of pay and overtime rate  or rates of pay if applicable; the regular pay day designated by the employer in accordance with  NYLL, Article 6, § 191; the name of the employer; or 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; plus such other information as  the commissioner deems material and necessary.   18   84.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants fifty dollars ($50) per employee for each workweek that the  violations occurred or continue to occur, or a total of five thousand dollars ($5,000) per employee,  as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, § 198(1-b)., liquidated damages as provided for by the NYLL,  reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and  declaratory relief.  Defendants’ Companies   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – UNPAID OVERTIME  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW –WAGE NOTICE VIOLATIONS  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – UNLAWFUL BUSINESS EXPENSE DEDUCTIONS  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – UNPAID OVERTIME  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – UNIFORM VIOLATIONS  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)  