16.  This action is properly maintainable as a collective action pursuant to the Fair  Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and as a Class Action under Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure.   17.  This action is brought on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and a class consisting of  similarly situated employees who worked for Defendants as butchers, meat and poultry handlers,  cleaners, packagers and related jobs.   18.  The Named Plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs who elect to opt-in as part of the  collective action and putative class members are all victims of the Defendants’ common policy  and / or plan to violate the NYLL and FLSA by failing to provide overtime wages, at the rate of  one and one half times the regular rate of pay, for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any  given week pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207, failing to provide spread of hours compensation on days  when the Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class worked shifts longer than ten  hours in one day, pursuant to Title 12 NYCRR §146.16(a), and failing to provide accurate  paystubs and wage statements pursuant to NYLL §§ 198-1(d) and 195 and 12 NYCRR § 146-2.2  and 2.3 .   19.  The putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  The size of the putative class is believed to be in excess of 50 employees. In addition, the names  of all potential members of the putative class are not known.   20.  The questions of law and fact common to the putative class predominate over any  questions affecting only individual members.  These questions of law and fact include, but are  not limited to, whether the Defendants (a) failed to pay overtime wages, at the rate of one and  -5-  one half times the regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in any given  week in violation of federal and state law; (b) failed to provide spread of hours compensation to  the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class when they worked shifts in excess of ten hours in one  day; and (c) failed to provide the Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class with  accurate paystubs and wage statements.    21.  The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical to the claims of other members of  the putative class.  The Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class  were all  subject to Defendants’ policies and willful practices of failing to pay their employees all earned  overtime wages and spread of hours compensation, and failing to provide accurate paystubs and  wage statements.  The Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class thus have  sustained similar injuries as a result of the Defendants’ actions.    22.  The Named Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the  interests of the putative class.  The Named Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in  complex wage and hour collective and class action litigation.    23.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  The Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class  lack the financial resources to adequately prosecute separate lawsuits against Defendants.  A  class action will also prevent unduly duplicative litigation resulting from inconsistent judgments  pertaining to the Defendants’ policies.   24.  Upon information and belief, beginning in or around June 2010, the Defendants  employed numerous individuals as butchers, meat and poultry handlers, packagers, cleaners and  in other related jobs.    25.  Upon information and belief, Defendant I&D Glatt has engaged and continues to  -6-  engage in interstate commerce within the meaning of the FLSA at all times relevant herein, in  that it: (i) has had and continues to have an annual gross volume of sales of not less than  $500,000 at all times relevant to this action; and (ii) has had and continues to have employees  working with and/or selling goods and materials that have been shipped into this state from other  states.    26.  The payments made to the Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative  class by Defendants constitute “wages” as that term is defined under Article 6 and Article 19 of  the New York Labor Law.    27.  Upon information and belief, while working for Defendants, the Named Plaintiffs  and members of the putative class were regularly required to perform work for Defendants in  excess of forty hours each week, without receiving overtime compensation as required by  applicable federal and state law.    28.  Upon information and belief, while working for Defendants, the Named Plaintiffs  and members of the putative class were regularly required to work shifts which exceeded ten  hours in one day, without receiving spread of hours compensation as required by applicable state  law.    29.  Upon information and belief, while working for Defendants, the Named Plaintiffs  and members of the putative class were not provided with accurate paystubs or wage statements  as required by applicable state law.    30.  Plaintiff Sanchez worked for Defendants at the Brooklyn location as a butcher and  meat packer from approximately July 2009 to December 2014.  From July 2009 through 2012,  Plaintiff Sanchez normally worked 6 days per week. His schedule was typically as follows:  Mondays and Tuesdays he worked from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; Wednesdays and  -7-  Thursdays, he normally worked from 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. and Fridays from 5:30 a.m. to 5:00  p.m.. From  approximately 2012 through 2014, his schedule remained the same, except for  having to work Sundays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Plaintiff Sanchez was paid a flat weekly  rate of approximately $400 to $840 per week in cash without an accurate paystub.      31.  During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Sanchez was sent to perform  work at the W. Hempstead location.  Plaintiff Sanchez performed the same work and was paid  the exact same way regardless of which location he worked at.   32.  Plaintiff Edgar Delgado worked for Defendants at the Brooklyn location as a  butcher from approximately June 2011 to January 2016. He usually worked 5 days per week,  from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.  Plaintiff Delgado was paid a flat weekly rate of  approximately $500 to $700 per week in cash without an accurate paystub.   33.  During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Delgado was also sent to  perform work at the W. Hempstead location.  Plaintiff Delgado performed the same work and  was paid the exact same way regardless of which location he worked at.   34.  The Named Plaintiffs know that other members of the putative class was were  paid the same way as the Named Plaintiffs because they often spoke amongst themselves about  their wages.   35.  The Named Plaintiffs and, upon information and belief, other members of the  putative class typically worked in excess of forty hours each week they were employed by  Defendants.   36.  The Named Plaintiffs and, upon information and belief, other members of the  putative class typically worked shifts that exceeded ten hours in one day.   37.  The Named Plaintiffs and, upon information and belief, other members of the  putative class were paid in cash and did not receive paystubs accurately reflecting the hours  -8-  worked and wages paid each week, nor did they receive wage statements.   38.  Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully  evaded recordkeeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable State law by  failing to maintain proper and complete timesheets or payroll records.   39.  Upon information and belief, Defendant David Yizhaky was an officer, director,  president, vice president, and/or owner of I&D Glatt, and (i) had the power to hire and fire  employees for the company; (ii) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or  conditions of employment for the company; (iii) determined the rate and method of payment for  Defendants’ employees; and (iv) maintained employment records for I&D Glatt.   40.  Upon information and belief, Defendant David Yizhaky dominated the day-to-day  operating decisions of I&D Glatt, made all major personnel decisions for I&D Glatt, and had  complete control of the alleged activities of I&D Glatt which give rise to the claims brought  herein.    41.  Upon information and belief, Defendant David Yizhaky was a supervisor, officer  and/or agent of I&D Glatt, who acted directly or indirectly in the interest of I&D Glatt, and is an  employer within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  David Yizhaky, in his capacity as  an officer, director, president, vice president, and/or owner, actively participated in the unlawful  method of payment for I&D Glatt employees.    42.  Upon information and belief, Defendants operate as part of an integrated  enterprise that employed or jointly employed the Named Plaintiffs and members of the putative  class at all relevant times.     43.  Defendants are a single and/or joint employer under New York Labor Law in that  they share a common business purpose and ownership, maintain common control, oversight and  direction over the operations of the work performed by the Named Plaintiffs and putative class,  -9-  including payroll practices.  Upon information and belief, individual Defendant has had  substantial control of the Named Plaintiffs’ and members of the putative class’ working  conditions and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.  44.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43  hereof.   45.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 207, “no employer shall employ any of his employees  who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is  employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, for  a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his  employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times  the regular rate at which he is employed.”    46.  I&D Glatt is an employer, within the meaning contemplated, pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 203(d).     47.  David Yizhaky is an employer, within the meaning contemplated, pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 203(d).    48.  The Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative collective action are  employees, within the meaning contemplated, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §203(e).   49.  The Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative collective action, during  all relevant times, engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or were  employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.    50.  29 U.S.C. §213 exempts certain categories of employees from minimum wage  obligations.  None of these exemptions apply to the Named Plaintiffs or other similarly situated  -10-  employees.    51.  Upon information and belief, Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay the  Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative collective overtime wages at a rate of one  and one-half times the normal rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in any given week.   52.  Upon information and belief, the failure of Defendants to pay the Named  Plaintiffs and other members of the putative collective their rightfully owed wages was willful.   53.  By the foregoing reasons, Defendants are liable to the Named Plaintiffs and other  members of the putative collective in an amount to be determined at trial, plus liquidated  damages in the amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.  54.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 53  hereof.   55.  I&D Glatt is an employer, within the meaning contemplated, pursuant to New  York Labor Law Article 19 § 651(6) and the supporting New York State Department of Labor  Regulations.    56.  David Yizhaky is an employer, within the meaning contemplated, pursuant to  York Labor Law Article 19 § 651(6) and the supporting New York State Department of Labor  Regulations.     57.  The Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class are employees,  within the meaning contemplated, pursuant to New York Labor Law Article 19 § 651(5) and the  supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations.   58.  12 NYCRR §142-2.2 requires that “[a]n employer shall pay an employee for  -11-  overtime at a wage rate of one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate….”     59.  New York Labor Law Article 19 § 663, provides that “[i]f any employee is paid  by his employer less than the wage to which he is entitled under the provisions of this article, he  may recover in a civil action the amount of any such underpayments, together with costs and  such reasonable attorney’s fees.”   60.  Named Plaintiffs and, upon information and belief other members of the putative  class, worked more than forty hours a week while working for Defendants.   61.  Named Plaintiffs and, upon information and belief other members of the putative  class, did not receive overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in any  given week.    62.  Consequently, by failing to pay to the Named Plaintiffs and other members of the  putative class overtime compensation, Defendants violated New York Labor Law Article 19 §  663 and 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2.    63.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ failure to pay overtime compensation  to the Named Plaintiffs and members of the putative class was willful.   64.  By the foregoing reasons, Defendants have violated New York Labor Law Article  19 § 663 and 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2 and are liable to the Named Plaintiffs and members of the  putative class action in an amount to be determined at trial, plus damages, interest, attorneys’  fees, and costs.  65.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 64  hereof.   -12-   66.  Title 12 NYCRR §146.16(a) requires that, “[o]n each day on which the spread of  hours exceeds 10, an employee shall receive one additional hour of pay at the basic minimum  hourly rate.”   67.  The Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class worked more than  10 hours in a day.    68.  Upon information and belief, Defendants did not pay the Named Plaintiffs and  other members of the putative class an additional hour’s pay when they worked more than 10  hours in a day.    69.  Consequently, by failing to pay to the Named Plaintiffs and other members of the  putative class an additional hour’s pay when they worked more than 10 hours in a day,  Defendants violated 12 NYCRR § 146-1.6(a).    70.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ failure to pay “spread of hours”  compensation for work performed by the Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative  class after 10 hours in a day was willful.    71.  By the foregoing reasons, Defendants have violated 12 NYCRR § 146-1.6(a), and  are liable to the Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class in an amount to be  determined at trial, plus interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs  72.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 71  hereof.   73.  Pursuant to New York Labor Law §§ 198-1(d) and 195 and 12 NYCRR § 146-2.2  and 2.3, an employer is required to provide its employee with a paystub that accurately reflects  the rate of pay, the hours worked and the amounts deducted. The paystubs must include:  the  -13-  employee’s rate or rates of pay; the overtime rate of pay, if the employee is subject to overtime  regulations; the basis of wage payment (per hour, per shift, per week, piece rate, commission,  etc.); any allowances the employer intends to claim as part of the minimum wage including tip,  meal, and lodging allowances; the regular pay day; the employer’s name and any names under  which the employer does business (DBA); the physical address of the employer’s main office or  principal place of business and, if different, the employer’s mailing address ; and the employer’s  telephone number.    74.  According to New York Labor Law § 198-1(d), Plaintiffs are entitled to $100 for  every week in which they did not receive a pay stub.   75.   The Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class did not receive  accurate paystubs each week that they worked.   76.  By the foregoing reasons, Defendants violated New York Labor Law §§ 198-1(d)  and 195 and 12 NYCRR § 146-2.2 and 2.3 and are liable to the Named Plaintiffs and other  members of the putative class in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, attorneys' fees  and costs.  WHEREFORE, the Named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other persons  similarly situated who were employed by IND GLATT, INC. and I&D GLATT 2, INC. d/b/a  I&D GLATT or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by IND GLATT, INC. and I&D  GLATT 2, INC. d/b/a I&D GLATT and DAVID YIZHAKY, demand judgment:  (1)  on their first cause of action, against Defendants in an amount to be determined at  trial, plus liquidated damages in the amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages,  interest, attorneys’ fees and costs,   -14-  (2)  on their second cause of action against Defendants in an amount to be determined at  trial, plus liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs;   (3)  on their third cause of action against Defendants in an amount to be determined at  trial, plus liquidated damages, interest, attorneys, fees and costs;   (4)  on their fourth cause of action against Defendants in an amount to be determined at  trial, plus liquidated damages, interest, attorneys, fees and costs; and   (5)  Any other and further relief the Court may deem appropriate.  Dated: New York, New York  June 23, 2016  FLSA OVERTIME COMPENSATION   NEW YORK OVERTIME COMPENSATION   NEW YORK IMPROPER PAY STUBS AND DOCUMENTATION   NEW YORK STATE SPREAD OF HOURS COMPENSATION  