24.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207, Plaintiff brings his First Cause of Action as a  collective action under the FLSA on behalf of himself and the following collective:  All persons employed by Defendants at any time since February  26, 2013 and through the entry of judgment in this case (the  “Collective Action Period”) who worked as electricians, laborers,  foremen and all other hourly employees (the “Collective Action  Members”).   25.  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 policy of failing to pay overtime premiums for work performed in excess of forty (40)  hours each week.  As a result of this policy, 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.   26.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members had substantially similar job duties,  work schedules, and were paid by Defendants pursuant to the same or substantially similar  payment structure.  6  27.  Pursuant to the NYLL, Plaintiff brings his Second through Seventh Causes of  Action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and the  following class:  All persons employed by Defendants in New York at any time  since February 26, 2010 and through the entry of judgment in this  case (the “Class Period”) who worked as electricians, laborers,  foremen and all other hourly employees (the “Class Members”).   28.  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 means permissible under Rule 23.   29.  The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   30.  Upon information and belief, there are in excess of forty (40) Class Members.   31.  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.  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.  what proof of hours worked is sufficient where employers fail in their duty to  maintain time records;  d.  whether Defendants failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members  overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek;  7  e.  whether Defendants breached their contracts with certain government agencies by  failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members the prevailing wages for work  performed pursuant to such contracts;  f.  whether Defendants breached their contracts with certain government agencies by  failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members the prevailing wage supplemental  benefits for work performed pursuant to such contracts;  g.  whether Defendants breached their contracts with certain government agencies by  failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members the prevailing wage overtime  premiums for work performed in excess of eight (8) hours in a day and for  weekend work;  h.  whether the Defendants had a policy of demanding and receiving kickbacks from  Plaintiffs and the Class by requiring them to pay Defendants their prevailing  wages earned while providing labor on public works projects;  h.  whether Defendants failed to provide proper 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;  i.  whether Defendants failed to furnish to Plaintiff and the Class Members a  statement of wages, hours worked, rates paid and gross wages, as required by the  NYLL; and  j.  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.   32.  The answer to these questions would drive resolution of the litigation.  If a judge  8  and/or jury agrees with Plaintiff on these issues, Defendants would be liable to all Class  Members for their NYLL wage and hour violations.   33.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class Members’ claims. Plaintiff, like all Class  Members, is a non-management employee 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 and did not receive  proper wage statements and wage notices.  If Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the claims  enumerated in this Complaint, they are also liable to all Class Members.   34.  Plaintiff and his 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.   35.  Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced class action litigators who are well-prepared to  represent the interests of the Class Members.   36.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation. 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.    37.  The individual members of the Class have no interest or capacity to bring separate  actions; Plaintiff is unaware of any other 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.  9  38.  At all relevant times, Defendant Fast Electric has been in the construction and  electrical contracting business.   39.  Akro’s filings with the New York State Department of State, Division of  Corporations lists Defendant Kostika as Akro’s Chief Executive Officer.   40.  PJP’s filings with the New York State Department of State, Division of  Corporations lists Defendant Perrone as PJP’s Chief Executive Officer.   41.  Rock Scaffolding’s filings with the New York State Department of State, Division  of Corporations lists Defendant Singh as Rock Scaffolding’s Chief Executive Officer.     42.  Upon information and belief, Defendants Kostikas and Perrone were regularly  present at the Public Works Projects to oversee the work of Plaintiff and Fast Electric’s other  employees.   43.  During all relevant times, Defendant Fast Electric contracted with one or more of  the corporate defendants (i.e. Akro, PJP and Rock Scaffolding) to provide electrical installation  work in connection with the contracts entered into by Akro, PJP, and/or Rock Scaffolding for  work on behalf of NYCHA or other public entities.  Defendants’ Prevailing Wage Projects   44.  Upon information and belief, Defendants have entered into certain contracts, as  either a subcontractor or prime contractor, with certain government agencies including the New  York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”), or with prime contractors not currently known, to  furnish labor, material and equipment to perform work on these Public Works Projects.      45.  Upon information and belief, among other Public Works Projects, Fast Electric  10  entered into a contract to perform work as a subcontractor with NYCHA, with Akron as the  prime contractor.  Upon information and belief, this particular contract was for a NYCHA  project, contract number: BW1128079  (the “NYCHA Project”).   46.  Upon information and belief, Fast Electric entered into certain contracts to  perform work as a subcontractor for certain Public Works Projects, with Akron, PJP and Rock  Scaffolding as the prime contractors.     47.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and other employees of Fast Electric  working on the NYCHA Project, performed work at various NYCHA housing developments  throughout New York City including, among others, the Hammel Houses in Far Rockaway, the  Parkside Housing Project in Bronx, the East New York City Line Housing Development in  Cypress Hills, Brooklyn, and the Gowanus Houses in Brooklyn.     48.  Upon information and belief, the contracts for these Public Works Projects  required that Defendants pay and ensure payment of the prevailing rates of wages and  supplements to all workers furnishing labor on the sites of the Public Works Projects, including  their direct employees and all other persons furnishing labor on the sites of the Public Works  Projects.  Upon information and belief, the public works contracts also provided that any  subcontracts that Defendants entered into contain language requiring the payment of prevailing  rates of wages and supplements to all workers furnishing labor on the sites of the Public Works  Projects.     49.  As required by law, a schedule containing the prevailing rates of wages and  supplemental benefits (“Prevailing Wage Schedule”) to be paid to Plaintiff should have been  annexed to and formed as part of the public works contracts.  If not annexed to the public works  contracts, these schedules were expressly or impliedly incorporated into the contracts as a matter  11  of law and/or public policy.   50.  The promise to pay and ensure payment of the prevailing wage and supplemental  benefit rated in the public works contracts was made for the benefit of all workers furnishing  labor on the sites of the Public Works Projects and, as such, the workers furnishing labor on the  sites of the Public Works Projects are the beneficiaries of that promise and the contracts entered  into between Defendants and governmental agencies.  Plaintiff’s Work for Defendants   51.  Plaintiff Carty worked for Fast Electric as an electrician from in or around  December 2011 through in or around December 2014 (the “Carty Employment Period”).   52.  At the beginning of the Carty Employment Period, Plaintiff Carty was typically  scheduled to work approximately between three and four (3-4) days per week, from  approximately 7:00 am through approximately between 8:00 pm and 3:00 am, for a total of  between approximately forty (40) and fifty (50) hours per week.  During approximately the last  eight (8) months of the Carty Employment Period, Carty was scheduled to work five (5) days per  week from approximately 7:00 am until approximately 7:00 pm, for a total of approximately  sixty (60) hours per week.    53.  Throughout the Carty Employment Period, Carty worked on certain Public Works  Projects at least once a month, with Fast Electric as the subcontractor and certain other  companies as general contractors, including Akro, PJP and Rock Scaffolding.    54.  Plaintiff was aware that Fast Electric was a sub-contractor to Akro, PJP and Rock  Scaffolding on the Public Works Projects because Defendant Acosta would inform him of the  addresses and general contractor’s name for each of the projects that Plaintiff had to drive to  perform electrical work.  12   55.  When working on the NYCHA Project, as a subcontractor to Akro, Plaintiff was  issued his prevailing wage checks by Akro instead of by Fast Electric.   56.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was issued checks by other general  contractors for his work on the public works projects, but was required to cash these checks and  provide “kickbacks” to his supervisor at Fast Electric.   57.  While working on certain Public Works Projects, including the NYCHA Project,  Carty was required to sign in and out on time sheets which provided the hours that Carty started  and finished work and his classification as an “A” electrician.    58.  At the beginning of the Carty Employment Period, for his work, Carty was paid  approximately $12.00 per hour which was periodically increased through his employment period  to a final wage of $16.00 per hour.  Throughout most of the Carty Employment Period, Carty  was paid entirely in cash, except approximately the last 6 months of his employment, when he  was paid with a combination of check and cash.    59.  Notwithstanding the fact that Carty typically worked at least 40 hours per week  including as much as 60 hours in a week, Carty never received overtime premium pay equal to  one and one-half (1.5) times his regular hourly wage.  Defendants’ failure to pay Carty overtime  premium pay for his hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a given workweek was a corporate  policy of Defendants that applied to all of Defendants’ electrician laborers, foreman, and other  hourly employees.    60.  During the Carty Employment Period with Defendants, Plaintiff primarily  performed work on NYCHA Projects in New York City.   61.  Throughout most of the Carty Employment Period, Plaintiff performed various  types of electrical work in scaffold projects including, but not limited to, installing (running and  13  terminating new wires) low and high-voltage electrical conduit, lighting fixtures, etc.     62.  Upon information and belief, in furtherance of the public works contracts entered  into by Defendants, Plaintiff and the members of the putative Collective Action and Class  performed various types of electrical work including, but not limited to, installing (running and  terminating new wires) low and high-voltage electrical conduit, lighting fixtures.    63.  For his work on the Public Works Projects, Defendants required Plaintiff to cash  his prevailing wage check and give the wages back to Defendants as “kickbacks” so that they  could pay him for all hours worked on both the Public Works Projects and private jobs.   Defendants thus paid Plaintiff at his regular hourly rate of approximately $12.00 - $16.00 per  hour for all hours worked, including hours in excess of forty (40) hours per week and hours  worked on Public Works Projects over eight (8) hours per day and/or weekend hours.   Defendants thus failed to pay Plaintiff the prevailing rate of wages, overtime wages, and  supplemental benefits as required by the New York City Prevailing Wage Schedules for his work  on the Public Works Projects.     64.  Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff was always paid approximately $12.00 -  $16.00 per hour in cash for all hours worked, he was instructed by Defendants that if anyone  from the “city” should ask how much they are paid, they should say that they are paid the correct  prevailing wages of approximately $98.00 per hour.     65.  Upon information and belief, all other employees of Fast Electric were also  required to cash their prevailing wage checks and give it back to Defendants as “kickbacks” in  order to get paid for all hours worked, including hours worked on the Public Works Projects, at  their regular hourly rate.     66.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff or Class Members with a proper wage notice  14  at the time of hire or on February 1 or each year, or wage statement(s) with every payment of  wages.    67.  Plaintiff’s work was performed in the normal course of Defendants’ business and  was integrated into the business of Defendants.   68.  Defendants have simultaneously employed other individuals like Plaintiff during  the relevant time periods and continuing until today, to perform work as electricians at  Defendants’ work sites.  As stated, the exact number of such individuals is presently unknown  but within the sole knowledge of Defendants and can be ascertained through discovery.  Defendants’ Unlawful Corporate Policies   69.  Like Plaintiff, Defendants’ other employees were required to work for Defendants  in excess of forty (40) hours each week, yet Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and their other  employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.  This refusal to pay Plaintiff and Defendants’ other employees overtime compensation for hours  worked in excess of forty (40) in a given week was a corporate policy of Defendants that applied  to all of Defendants’ hourly employees.   70.  Defendants entered into contracts with public entities which obligated Defendants  to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members at or above the local prevailing wage rates, including  any required supplementary benefits and overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of forty  (40) per week, eight (8) hours per day, and hours worked on Saturday and Sunday.  Defendants’  failure to pay Plaintiff these prevailing wage rates, supplementary benefits, and overtime  premiums was a corporate policy that also applied to all of Defendants’ other similarly situated  employees.   71.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff or Class Members with a proper wage notice  15  at the time of hire or on February 1 or each year, or wage statement(s) with every payment of  wages.  Defendants’ failure to provide proper wage notice and wage statements was a corporate  policy of Defendants which applied to all of their employees throughout the Class Period.   72.  As employees of Defendants who were assigned to work on Defendants’ publicly  financed projects, Plaintiff and the Class Members were intended third-party beneficiaries of  Defendants’ public works contracts.   73.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members at the appropriate  prevailing wage rates for their publicly financed contracts, yet upon information and belief,  Defendants were compensated under these contracts as though they had paid the appropriate  prevailing wage rates to Plaintiff and the members of the collective action.  74.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.   75.  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).   76.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   77.  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  16  Members are entitled to recover from Defendants his 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).  78.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.   79.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff’s and 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  pay for hours worked in excess of 40 each week, in violation of the NYLL and regulations  promulgated thereunder.   80.  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.  81.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.   81.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.   82.  Defendants required Plaintiff and the Class Members to pay Defendants a portion  of their prevailing wages, in violation of New York Labor Law § 198-b.   82.  Defendants have willfully failed to supply Plaintiff and the Class Members notice  as required by Article 6, § 195, in English or in the language identified by Plaintiff and the Class  17  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 the 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.   83.  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 twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500) per  employee, as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190, et seq., liquidated damages as provided  for by the NYLL, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and  injunctive and declaratory relief.  83.  Defendants’ failure to comply with New York Labor law’s prohibition on kickbacks  caused the Plaintiffs and the Class Members to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon.  84.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.   85.  Defendants have willfully failed to supply Plaintiff and Class Members with an  accurate statement of wages as required by NYLL, Article 6, § 195, containing 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; gross wages; hourly rate or rates of pay and overtime  18  rate or rates of pay if applicable; the number of hours worked, including overtime hours worked  if applicable; deductions; and net wages.    86.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Class Members are  entitled to recover from Defendants one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each workweek  that the violations occurred or continue to occur, or a total of twenty-five hundred dollars  ($2,500) per employee, as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190 et seq., liquidated damages  as provided for by the NYLL, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment  interest, and injunctive and declaratory relief.  87.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.   88.  Upon information and belief, the public works contracts entered into by  19  Defendants contained schedules of the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits to be  paid to Plaintiff and the employees performing work pursuant to such contracts.   89.  Those prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits were made part of the  public works contracts for the benefit of Plaintiff and the other employees performing work  pursuant to such contracts.   90.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff at the correct prevailing wage rates for straight  time, overtime, and supplemental benefits for work performed on Public Works Projects  constituted a material breach of the contracts entered into between Defendants and certain public  entities.   91.  As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff at prevailing wage rates, they  are entitled to relief from Defendants for breach of contract under New York common law of  contracts.  92.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.   93.  Based on Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff the appropriate prevailing wage  rates, Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff.   94.  Equity and good conscience require that Defendants pay restitution to Plaintiff.   95.  Upon information and belief, when Defendants entered into the public works  contracts, they agreed to pay the required prevailing wages, overtime, shift-differential and  holiday premiums, and supplemental benefit rates of pay to Plaintiff and other employees who  20  performed work pursuant to these contracts.   96.  Plaintiff provided valuable services to Defendants on prevailing wage projects for  which Plaintiff expected compensation.  Defendants knowingly accepted such services yet failed  to pay Plaintiff the reasonable value of such services as defined by the New York City prevailing  wage schedules.   97.  As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff at prevailing wage rates on  prevailing wage jobs and Defendants’ corresponding unjust enrichment, Plaintiff is entitled to  relief from Defendants under New York’s common law of unjust enrichment.   98.  As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff the reasonable value of the  valuable services they rendered, Plaintiff is entitled to relief from Defendants under New York’s  common law of quantum meruit.  BREACH OF CONTRACT  (Brought On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)   Defendants’ Companies   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – UNPAID OVERTIME  (Brought On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS  (Brought On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – WAGE NOTICE VIOLATIONS  (Brought On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – ILLEGAL KICKBACKS  (Brought On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – UNPAID OVERTIME  (Brought On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)   UNJUST ENRICHMENT & QUANTUM MERUIT  (Pled In The Alternative)  (Brought On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members)  