25. On or about June 2015, Plaintiff was hired as a Co-Manager by Express to work for  Defendant’s retail store in the Newport Centre Mall located at 30 Mall Dr W, Jersey City,  NJ 07310 (“Newport Store”).  6   26. Plaintiff worked at the Newport Store from on or around June 2015 until on or around  September 2016.   27. As a Co-Manager, Plaintiff was required to work five (5) days per week and generally  worked around forty-two hours (42) per week. During the holiday season3 Plaintiff would  work longer hours and the number of hours she worked each week would increase to  around forty-five (45) hours.    28. Specifically, each work day Plaintiff would be assigned to work any of the following three  shifts: (the opening shift) from 8:00 am until 6:00 pm, (the middle shift) from 11: 00 am to  8:00 pm, the (closing shift) from 2:00 pm to 12 am or 1:00 am. The specific five days of  any given week Plaintiff would work varied, the weekly arrangement was subject to the  store’s advance scheduling notice. Plaintiff had a thirty-minute break each day and thus  worked at least forty-two and a half hours (42.50) each week.       29. Although hired as a Co-Manager, Plaintiff’s primary duties were largely unrelated to the  management of the store and were not meaningfully different from the hourly associates.  On a daily basis, Plaintiff primarily performed tasks including but not limited to: stocking  and running merchandise, cleaning the store and the bathrooms, ringing the register,  marking down the merchandise, store recovery, trash disposal, and folding clothes, taking  care of customer services, take returns and exchange and other duties typically expected of  hourly associates.   3 The holiday season generally runs a month long and starts from the time around Thanksgiving to the time around  Christmas.  7   30. As a Co-Manager, Defendants assigned Plaintiff to open or close the store depending on  her schedule. However, this responsibility was not exclusive to Co-Managers and  Defendants sometimes also assigned opening and closing the store to hourly associates.    31. As a Co-Manager, Plaintiff did not have discretion about any decisions that were critical  to the management and operation of Express. She lacked authority to change work shifts,  alter store hours, change the layout of the store, set pay rates or prices, to maintain sales  records. Each of these types of tasks were within the discretion of the Store Manager. Any  decision she ever made had to make required Store Manager approval.    32. Plaintiff did not have the authority to hire, discipline or fire the hourly associates or make  recommendations which were given particular weight by management in regard to those  decisions.   33. Plaintiff was given detailed specific instruction each day by the Store Manager and did not  have the discretion to deviate from these instructions in the performance of her duties.  The  performance of the duties she was assigned was controlled and dictated by Defendant’s  policies and procedures.   34.  At the time of her hire, District Manager Brian4 (“Brian”) told Plaintiff that she would  receive an annual salary of $50,000 5 as a Co- Manager but she would also receive  “Supplemental”6 if she ever had to work overtime.  After their meeting, Brain sent Plaintiff  a web link via e-mail for her to go to Express’s website to complete the necessary steps  after hiring. Upon clicking the link, Plaintiff was directed to webpages on Express’s  4 Plaintiff does not recall his last name.   5 Plaintiff was also promised a one-time $5,000 “bonus” on the condition that she would stay with Express for at  least a year.  6 Brain did not explain exactly what does “Supplemental” mean or how it would be calculated.   8  website that further informed her about work and pay. Specifically, one webpage contains  details of her regular hourly pay rate and explicitly stated that, for hours she worked over  forty, she would be compensated at 0.5 times her regular hourly rate. Plaintiff e-signed this  webpage.   35. Despite of being classified as exempt salaried employee, Plaintiff was required to track the  number of hours she worked and was paid the “Supplemental” for the hours she worked  over 40 at a rate of 0.5 times her regular hourly rate.   New York Employment Period   36. From on or about May 1999 to on or around May 2013, Plaintiff worked at different  Express Stores in Manhattan, New York7 (the “New York Stores”). Plaintiff first worked  as sales associate and then was promoted to be a Co-Manager in 2010.   37. In 2010, Plaintiff was notified via telephone by her Department Manager Richard Kim that  the Reginal Manager Robin Summas and he agreed that Plaintiff would be promoted to be  a Co-Manager. Upon the promotion, Plaintiff met with her store manager Latanya  Spellman, who informed her that she will be salaried. Ms. Spellman gave Plaintiff two  documents to sign, one telling her what her annual salary is, the other stating that she was  promoted to be a Co-Manager and that she would be paid a salary plus the “Supplemental”  for the hours she worked over 40 a week. The document did not specify what the term  “Supplemental” meant, what it consists of, or how it would be calculated. Ms. Spellman  told her verbally that she would be paid 0.5 times her hourly rate basing on her annual  salary for hours she work over 40.   7 See Footnote 1.  9   38. Throughout her time as a Co-Manager at the New York stores, Plaintiff regularly worked  five (5) days per week and generally worked sometime between forty –three (43) to forty- five (45) hours per week. During the holiday season8 Plaintiff would work longer hours  and the number of hours she worked each week would increase to sometime between forty- five (45) to forty-nine (49) hours.    39. Plaintiff did not have a set work schedule when she worked as a Co-Manager at the New  York Stores, she would receive the store’s scheduling notice one week in advance.   40. Similar to what she later experienced in the Newport Store, Plaintiff’s work at the New  York stores were non-managerial in nature. Although hired as a Co-Manager, Plaintiff’s  primary duties were largely unrelated to the management of the store and were not  meaningfully different from the hourly associates. On a daily basis, Plaintiff primarily  performed tasks including but not limited to: stocking and running merchandise, cleaning  the store and the bathrooms, ringing the register, marking down the merchandise, store  recovery, trash disposal, folding clothes, taking care of customer services, taking returns  and exchanges, and other duties typically expected of hourly associates. Her job duties  therefore did not differ greatly from her duties as sales associate.    41. Throughout her time worked at the New York Stores, Plaintiff received an annual salary at  about $65,000 a year with performance-based bonus that tied to the sales of the store.    42. Despite of being misclassified as exempt salaried employee, Plaintiff was required to track  the number of hours she worked and was paid, as the “Supplemental” for the hours she  worked in excess of 40 at 0.5 times her regular hourly rate derived from her annual salary.   8 The holiday season generally runs a month long and starts from the time around Thanksgiving to the time around  Christmas.  10   43. Defendant knowingly and willfully operated its business with a policy of not paying  overtime premiums equal to one and a half times Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate for hours  worked in excess of forty in a workweek.   44. Defendant knowingly and willfully operated its business with a policy of not paying  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and  one-half), the New Jersey overtime rate (of time and one-half), or the New York overtime  rate (of time and one-half), in violation of the FLSA, NYLL and New Jersey State Wage  and Hour Law and the supporting federal and state regulations.   45. Plaintiff brings FLSA claims on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons  who have been or were classified as exempt from FLSA’s overtime pay provision and  employed by Express as salaried Co-Manager who have worked in excess of 40 hours per  week during any work week for up to the last three (3) years, through entry of judgment in  this case (the “Collective Action Period”), and whom failed to receive overtime  compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week at  time and one- half their  regular hourly rate (the “Collective Action Members”), and have been subject to  the same common decision, policy, in contravention to federal and state labor laws.    46. During the relevant time, Plaintiff has been similarly situated to all Co-Managers of  Defendant and has been subjected to illegal terms and conditions of employment, including  failure and refusal to properly compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated Co-Managers  for overtime hours worked during their employment with Defendant.    47. Plaintiff’s claims under the FLSA herein are essentially the same as those of all Co- Managers in Defendant’s employment in that it is Defendant’s policy and practice to  11  schedule Co-Managers to work in excess of forty hours per week, without proper  compensation of overtime pay.   48. Upon information and belief, the Collection Action Members are so numerous the joinder  of all members is impracticable. The identity and precise number of such persons are  unknown, and the facts upon which the calculations of that number may be ascertained are  presently within the sole control of the Defendants. Upon information and belief, there are  more than forty (40) Collective Action members, who have worked for or have continued  to work for the Defendant during the Collective Action Period, most of whom would not  likely file individual suits because they fear retaliation, lack adequate financial resources,  access to attorneys, or knowledge of their claims. Therefore, Plaintiff submits that this case  should be certified as a collection action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).    49. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action Members,  and have retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the field of employment  law and class action litigation. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to or in conflict  with those members of this collective action.   50. This action should be certified as collective action because the prosecution of separate  actions by individual members of the collective action would risk creating either  inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members of this class that  would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not party to  the adjudication, or subsequently impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.    51. A collective action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all members is impracticable.  Furthermore, inasmuch as the damages suffered by individual Collective Action Members  12  may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it virtually  impossible for the members of the collective action to individually seek redress for the  wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as  collective action.    52. Questions of law and fact common to members of the collective action predominate over  questions that may affect only individual members because Defendants have acted on  grounds generally applicable to all members. Among the questions of fact common to  Plaintiff and other Collective Action Members are:   a. Whether the Defendant employed Collective Action members within the meaning of the  56. Plaintiff brings NYLL and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law Claims, as set forth below, as  a class action pursuant to FRCP Rule 23 on behalf of herself as well as on behalf of all Co- Managers who classified as exempt by Defendant in the State of New York and New  Jersey.   57. Specifically, Plaintiff intends to represent individuals who have been or were misclassified  as exempt from overtime pay provision under the NYLL and New Jersey Wage and Hour  Law and employed by Express as salaried Co-Manager who have worked in excess of 40  hours per week during any work week, and whom failed to receive proper overtime  compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week at  time and one- half their regular hourly rate (the “State Class Plaintiffs”), and have been subject to the  same common decision, policy, in contravention to the NYLL and the New Jersey Wage  and Hour Law.    58. All questions relating to Defendant’s violation of the NYLL and the New Jersey Wage and  Hour Law share the questions of law and fact common to the State Class Plaintiffs which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members, including:    a. Whether Defendant employed Plaintiff and the Class within the meaning of the NYLL  and New Jersey Wage and Hour law;   14  b. Whether Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and Class members as exempt from the NYLL  and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law provisions;  c. Whether Plaintiff and Class members properly paid at a rate of one-and-one-half times  their regular rate for all hours they worked in excess of 40;  e. At what common rate, or rates subject to common method of calculation were and are  the Defendant required to pay the Class members for their work.   59. A class action is superior to all other methods and is necessary in order to fairly and  completely litigate the violations of the NYLL and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law  that have occurred.    60. The list of putative class members included in Plaintiff’s NYLL and New Jersey Wage and  Hour Law claims is readily discernible and ascertainable from Defendant. Notice of this  class action can be offered by any means permissible under the FRCP Rule 23  requirements.   61. The case being brought as a class action has the public benefit of saving the Court time and  effort by reducing a multitude of claims to a single litigation. Prosecution of separate  actions by individual class members creates a risk for varying results based on identical  fact patterns as well as disposition of the classes’ interests without their knowledge or  contribution.   62. Because of the nature of wage and hour claims brought during the course of employment,  class members are often fearful of filing claims against their employers and would benefit  from Plaintiff’s willingness to proceed against Defendant. The anonymity inherent in a  class action suit further provides safety against retaliation and/or undue stress and fear for  the class members’ jobs and continued employment.  15   63. Class certification is appropriate because common questions of law and fact predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members of the class, and because a class  action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  litigation.  64. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully  set forth herein.    65. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendant was Plaintiff and Collective Class  Members’ employers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).   66. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was employer engaged in commerce within  the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §206 (a) and 207 (a).   67. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members were misclassified as exempt from  overtime pay and failed to receive overtime compensation at the overtime premium for  their overtime hours worked.   68. Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members overtime wages for hours  worked in excess of forty per week at a wage rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay  under 29 U.S.C. §206 (a), in the violation of 29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1).   69. Defendant’s violations of the FLSA as described in this Complaint have been willful and  intentional.  Defendant has not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with  respect to its compensation of Plaintiff.  16   70. Due to Defendant’s FLSA violations, Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to recover  from Defendant their unpaid overtime wages and an equal amount in the form of liquidated  damages, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action, pursuant to the  FLSA, specifically 29 U.S.C. §216(b), all in an amount to be determined at trial.  71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully  set forth herein.    72. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and Class members were employed by  Defendant within the meaning of New Jersey Statutes Annotated 34:11-56a1(h).   73. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was employers within the meaning of New  Jersey Statutes Annotated 34:11-56a1(g).   74. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members were misclassified as exempt from  overtime pay and failed to receive overtime compensation at the overtime premium for  their overtime hours worked.   75. Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and Class members’ overtime wages for hours  worked in excess of forty per week at a wage rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay or,  at a minimum, the minimum wage to which Plaintiff and Class members were entitled  under New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated  34:11-56a4 and 12:56.   76. Due to Defendants’ violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, Plaintiff and Class  members are entitled to recover from Defendant their unpaid minimum wages as well as  reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, pursuant to the New Jersey Wage and  17  Hour law, specifically New Jersey Statutes Annotated 34:11-56a25, all in an amount to be  determined at Trial.  77. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully  set forth herein.    78. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and Class members were employed by  Defendant within the meaning of New Jersey Statutes Annotated 34:11-4.1.   79. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was employer within the meaning of New  Jersey Statutes Annotated 34:11-4.1   80. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members were misclassified as exempt from  overtime pay and failed to receive overtime compensation at the overtime premium for  their overtime hours worked.   81. Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and Class members’ wages that Plaintiff and  Class members were entitled under New Jersey Wage Payment Law, in violation of New  Jersey Statutes Annotated 34:11-4.2 and 34:11-4.3.   82. Due to Defendant’s violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, Plaintiff and Class  members are entitled to recover from Defendants their full amount of wages due plus an  additional equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as as reasonable attorneys’ fees and  costs of the action, pursuant to the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, specifically New  Jersey Statutes Annotated 34:11-56.8, all in an amount to be determined at Trial.  18  83. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully  set forth herein.   84. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members were employed by the Defendant within  the meaning of the New York Labor Law, §§2 and 651.   85. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members were misclassified as exempt from  overtime pay and failed to receive overtime compensation at the overtime premium for  their overtime hours worked.   86. Defendant willfully violated Plaintiff’s rights and the rights of the members of the Class  by failing to pay them overtime compensation at rates not less than one and one-half times  the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek in  violation of the New York Labor Law and its regulations.   87. The Defendant’s New York Labor Law violations have caused Plaintiff and the members  of the Class irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.   88. Due to the Defendant’s New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiff and the members of the  Class are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid unpaid overtime compensation,  damages for unreasonably delayed payment of wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs  and disbursements of the action, pursuant to New York Labor Law § 663(1) et al.  Prayer For Relief  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees and the  Class Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this court enter a judgment providing the following relief:    a)  A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under  19  the FLSA and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law;  b)      An injunction against Defendants and their officers, agents, successors, employees,  representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with them as provided by law,  from engaging in each of unlawful practices and policies set forth herein;   c)       An award of unpaid overtime compensation due under FLSA and New Jersey State  Wage and Hour Law;   d)   An award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’ knowing  and willful failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to New Jersey State Wage and  Hour Law;  e)  Back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, Court costs and fees and such other relief as the Court  may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances for violations of the New Jersey  Law Against Discrimination against H.C. International Inc. and Andrew Cai.    f)       An award of prejudgment and post-judgment fees;    g)  An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorney’s  and expert fees;  h)      Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just,  and proper.    New Jersey Employment    [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage Claim  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of New Jersey Wage Payment Law—Claim for Unpaid Overtime Wages]  Plaintiff and On behalf of the New Jersey Class Members   [Violation of New Jersey Wage and Hour Law—Claim for Overtime Wages]  On behalf of the Plaintiff and the New Jersey Class Members   [Violation of New York State Labor Law- Claim for Unpaid Overtime Wages]  Plaintiff and on Behalf of All New York State Plaintiffs  