19.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 & 216(b), Plaintiffs brings their First Cause of Action  as a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and the following collective:  All persons employed by Defendant at any time since January 10,  2014 and through the entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective  Action Period”) who worked as concierges/door men (the  “Collective Action Members”).   20.  A collective action is appropriate in this circumstance because Plaintiffs and the  Collective Action Members are similarly situated, in that they were all subjected to Defendant’s  illegal policy of automatically deducting from their work time an hour for a “lunch break” each  5  day, despite the fact that they were not permitted to take an uninterrupted lunch break during their  shift because they were not permitted to leave the door unattended.  As a result of this policy,  Plaintiffs 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.   21.  Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members have substantially similar job duties  and are paid pursuant to a similar, if not the same, payment structure.   22.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been in the real estate investment and  development business, specializing in complex urban development, including large-scale  multifamily residential buildings. (www.lcor.com/about).    23.  According to the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations,  LCOR’s principal executive office is located at 850 Casset Road, Suite 300, Berwyn, Pennsylvania  19312 and its initial DOS filing date was on March 9, 1992.    24.  According to LCOR’s website, 34 Berry is a 7-story, 142-unit luxury rental  building situated in the thriving Williamsburg section of Brooklyn.  The website also provides that  the building opened in 2010 and was fully leased in under seven (7) months. (See  https://goo.gl/ch2d8D)1.   25.  LCOR’s website also provides that 250 North 10th Street is a six-story high-end  rental building with 234 units. The website also provides that the building is 185,000 square feet  and was anticipated to be completed in February 2014. (See https://goo.gl/lx88M3).   26.   According to the Property Tax Benefit Information found on the New York City  1 The original URL for this page was shortened using Google’s URL Shortener (https://goo.gl).    6  Department of Finance website (https://a836-propertyportal.nyc.gov/#), 34 Berry has a 15-year  “421A Exemption” for the period July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2026, resulting in a tax benefit  amount of $7,843,780.     27.  According to the Property Tax Benefit Information found on the New York City  Department of Finance website (https://a836-propertyportal.nyc.gov/#), 250 North 10th Street has  a 15-year “421A Exemption” for the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2027, resulting in a tax  benefit amount of $18,945,580.   § 421-a Prevailing Wage Requirements   28.  On December 28, 2006, the Mayor signed Local Law No. 58 of 2006.  This  legislation, which contained major reforms to the 421-a tax exemption program, including the  prevailing wage requirement for service workers, became effective on December 28, 2007.   29.   The specific prevailing wage requirement written into Section 421-a of the New  York Real Property Tax Law provides that: “No benefits under this section shall be conferred for  any construction commenced on or after December twenty-eighth, two thousand seven for any tax  lots now existing or hereafter created except where the applicant agrees that all building service  employees employed at the building, whether employed directly by the applicant or its successors,  or through a property management company or a contractor, shall receive the applicable prevailing  wage for the duration of the building’s tax exemption.” (N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law § 421-a (8)(b)).   30.  The “prevailing wage” requirement set forth in Section 421-a refers to the wages  determined by the fiscal officer to be prevailing for the various classes of building service  employees in the locality pursuant to NYLL § 230.  (See § 421-a (8)(a)(ii)).    31.  The New York City Comptroller’s NYLL § 230 Prevailing Wage Schedules for  7  building service employees contain the following rates for cleaner/porter and doorperson2:   a. 07/01/2009 – 10/20/2009: $19.20 plus $7.08 supplemental benefit;  b. 10/21/2009 – 06/30/2010: $19.47 plus $7.08 supplemental benefit;  c. 07/01/2010 – 12/31/2010: $19.84 plus $8.28 supplemental benefit;  d. 01/01/2011 – 04/20/2011: $19.84 plus $8.68 supplemental benefit;  e. 04/21/2011 – 06/30/2011: $20.22 plus $8.68 supplemental benefit;  f. 07/01/2011 – 04/20/2012: $20.22 plus $8.68 supplemental benefit;3  g. 04/21/2012 – 06/30/2012: $20.77 plus $8.68 supplemental benefit;  h. 07/01/2012 – 04/20/2013: $20.77 plus $8.68 supplemental benefit;  i. 04/21/2013 – 06/30/2013: $21.34 plus $9.43 supplemental benefit;  j. 07/01/2013 – 12/31/2013: $21.34 plus $ 9.43 supplemental benefit;  k. 01/01/2014 – 06/30/2014: $21.34 plus $9.83 supplemental benefit;  l. 07/01/2014 – 04/20/2015: $21.98 plus $9.83 supplemental benefit; and  m. 04/21/2015 – 06/30/2015: $22.51 plus $10.38 supplemental benefit.                                      Plaintiffs’ Work for Defendants   32.  Plaintiff Marshall was employed by Defendant as a concierge/doorman from in or  around June 2010 through in or around May 2015 (the “Marshall Employment Period”).   33.  From the beginning of the Marshall Employment Period through approximately the  end of 2014, Marshall worked for Defendant at 34 Berry.  Thereafter, until the end of the Marshall  Employment Period, Marshall worked for Defendant at 250 North 10th.    34.  For his work, Marshall was paid on an hourly basis at the following rates: from the  2 The NYLL § 230 schedules were amended in 2014 to explicitly include the title of “doorperson” under the same  classification as cleaner/porter. Accordingly, the rates from prior to 2014 are for the cleaner/porter classification.  3 Beginning with the 2011-2012 NYLL § 230 schedules, the rates were adjusted for “new hire” employees, as defined  by months worked for the employer.   8  beginning of the Marshall Employment Period until 2012 he was paid approximately $14.42 per  hour; from in or around 2012 to 2013, he was paid approximately $14.85 per hour; from 2013 until  2014, he was paid approximately $15.00 per hour; from 2014 to 2015 he was paid approximately  $15.76 per hour; and from 2015 until the end of the Marshall Employment Period, he was paid  approximately $17.00 per hour.    35.  Plaintiff Soto was employed by Defendant from in or around May 2010 through in  or around May 2015 (the “Soto Employment Period”).   36.  Plaintiff Soto worked for Defendant as a porter at 34 Berry until approximately the  end of 2014, when he was transferred to work at 250 North 10th Street. When he was transferred  to work at 250 North 10th Street, he began working for Defendant as a concierge/door man.    37.  For his work, Soto was paid on an hourly basis at the following rates: from the  beginning of the Soto Employment Period until May 2011, he was paid approximately $13.00 per  hour; from May 2011 until May 2012, he was paid approximately $13.26 per hour; from May 2012  until May 2013, he was paid approximately $13.76 per hour; from May 2013 until the end of 2014,  Soto was paid approximately $14.25 per hour; from the end of 2014, when he transferred to 250  North 10th Street until in or around February 2015, he was paid approximately $17.00 per hour;  from in or around February 2015 until May 2015, he was paid approximately $21.00 per hour.   38.  Throughout their respective employment periods, Plaintiffs typically worked five  (5) days per week, nine (9) hours per shift, and sometimes more if they covered a shift for a co- worker.    39.  Defendants automatically deducted one (1) hour from Plaintiffs’ hours each day for  a lunch break, despite the fact that, while working as concierge/door men, Plaintiffs were not able  to take a full one (1) hour interrupted lunch break. As such, Plaintiffs were not paid for all hours  9  worked each week including overtime hours when working over 40 hours in a week.    40.  Throughout their respective employment periods, Plaintiffs were not paid the  applicable prevailing wage rates for their work and were not provided with supplemental benefits.  41.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Collective Action Members, repeat and  reallege each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and  effect as though fully set forth herein.   42.  By automatically deducting one (1) hour from Plaintiffs’ work time for each day of  work for a “lunch” break, despite the fact that Plaintiffs were not provided with a 1-hour  uninterrupted lunch break, Defendants failed to pay overtime for all hours worked 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 thus 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).   43.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   44.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime caused Plaintiffs and the Collective Action  Members to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon. Plaintiffs 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).  10  45.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the opt-in plaintiffs, repeat and reallege each  and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though  fully set forth herein.   46.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiffs’ rights by failing to pay overtime  compensation at a rate of not less than one and one-half (1.5) times the regular rate of pay for all  hours worked in excess of 40 each week, in violation of the NYLL and regulations promulgated  thereunder.   47.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime premium compensation caused Plaintiffs to  suffer loss of wages and interest thereon.  Plaintiffs 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.  48.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the opt-in plaintiffs, repeat and reallege each  and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though  fully set forth herein.    49.  Upon information and belief, Defendants entered into a contract with local and/or  state government entities when they agreed to the terms of the 421-a Tax Abatement, among which  terms included the requirement of paying the building service employees prevailing wages.     50.  Upon information and belief, the contract entered into by Defendants upon receipt  11  of the § 421-a Tax Abatement contained provisions for the payment of prevailing wages to building  service employees prevailing rates of wages, daily overtime and supplemental benefits pursuant to  the Office of the Comptroller, City of New York’s Building Service Employees Prevailing Wage  Schedule.     51.  Those prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits were made part of the  contract for the benefit of the Plaintiffs and the other employees performing work pursuant to such  contract. In the event that the contract or agreement entered into to enact the 421-A Tax Abatement  failed to explicitly containing prevailing wage schedules, the prevailing wage requirements were  supplemented as a matter of law, requiring Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs and other building  service employees prevailing wages, daily/weekly overtime and supplemental benefits for all work  performed.   52.  Defendants breached the 421-a Tax Abatement agreement by failing to pay  Plaintiffs, who were third-party beneficiaries of such contract, at New York State and/or New York  city prevailing wage rates, overtime hours at the prevailing wage overtime rates for all hours  worked on prevailing wage projects in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek or eight (8) hours  per day and supplemental benefits on prevailing wage jobs as required by the New York City and  New York State prevailing wage schedules pursuant to Tit. 28, Ch. 6 of the Rules of the City of  New York and § 421-a of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York.    53.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs at the correct prevailing wage rates for straight  time, overtime, and supplemental benefits for work performed in the building constituted a  material breach of the contracts entered into between Defendants and certain public entities.   54.  As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs at prevailing wage rates, they are  entitled to relief from Defendants for breach of contract under New York common law of contracts.  12  55.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the opt-in plaintiffs, repeat and reallege each  and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though  fully set forth herein.   56.  Based on Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs the appropriate prevailing wage rates,  Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs.   57.  Equity and good conscience require that Defendants pay restitution to Plaintiffs.   58.  Upon information and belief, when Defendants entered into the contract, they  agreed to pay the required prevailing wages, overtime, shift-differential and holiday premiums,  and supplemental benefit rates of pay to Plaintiffs and other employees who performed work  pursuant to the contract.   59.  Plaintiffs provided valuable services to Defendants performing prevailing wage  jobs for which Plaintiffs expected compensation.  Defendants knowingly accepted such services  yet failed to pay Plaintiffs the reasonable value of such services as defined by the New York State  and New York City prevailing wage schedules.   60.  As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs at prevailing wage rates on  prevailing wage jobs and Defendants’ corresponding unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs are entitled to  relief from Defendants under New York’s common law of unjust enrichment.   61.  As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs the reasonable value of the  valuable services they rendered, Plaintiffs are entitled to relief from Defendants under New York’s  common law of quantum meruit.  13  BREACH OF CONTRACT  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs)   Defendant’s Buildings   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT – UNPAID OVERTIME  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members)   NEW YORK LABOR LAW – UNPAID OVERTIME  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs)   UNJUST ENRICHMENT & QUANTUM MERUIT  (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs)  (Pled In The Alternative)  