 [Violation of New York Labor Law—New York Pay Stub Requirement]  108.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.  109.  The NYLL and supporting regulations require employers to provide detailed  paystub information to employees every payday. NYLL §195-1(d).  110.  Defendants have failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the New York  Labor Law with respect to compensation of each Plaintiff, and did not provide the pay stub on or  after each Plaintiff’s payday.   19.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.   20.  At all relevant times, Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs  and similarly situated employees for each hour worked.  5   21.  At all relevant times, Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs  and similarly situated employees at least the applicable New York minimum wage rate for each  hour worked.   22.  At all relevant times, Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs  and similarly situated employees their lawful overtime of one and one-half times (1.5x) their  regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) in a given workweek.   23.  At all relevant times, Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs  and similarly situated employees their lawful spread of hours for workdays that began and ended  ten (10) hours apart.   24.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime pay, failure to  provide paystubs and failure to provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring would  financially injure Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and violate state and federal laws.    25.  Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to keep full and accurate records in  order to mitigate liability for wage violations.   26.  At all relevant times, Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to provide  Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees with Time of Hire Notices in their primary languages  reflecting rates of pay and payday as well as paystubs that listed the employee’s name, the  employer’s name, the employer’s address and telephone number, the employee’s rate or rates of  pay, any deductions made from employees’ wages, any allowances claimed as part of the minimum  wage, and the employee’s gross and net wages for each pay day.   27.  At all relevant times, Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to provide  Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees with statements every payday that accurately listed all  of the following: the dates of work covered by that payment of wages; the employee’s name; the  6  name of the employer; the address and phone number of the employer; the employee’s rate or rates  of pay and basis thereof; the employee’s gross wages; the employee’s deductions; allowances, if  any, claimed as part of the minimum wage; net wages; the employee’s regular hourly rate or rates  of pay; the employee’s overtime rate or rates of pay; the employee’s number of regular hours  worked, and the employee’s number of overtime hours worked.   28.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for overtime compensation according to  state and federal laws.   29.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime wages, failure  to provide paystubs and failure to provide the required wage notice would economically injure  Plaintiffs and the Class Members by their violation of federal and state laws.   30.  At all relevant times, Defendants failed to post the required New York State  Department Labor posters regarding minimum wage pay rates, overtime pay, and pay day.   31.  Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to provide Plaintiffs and similarly  situated employees with notices of their exact date of termination and of the cancellation of  employee benefits connected with termination within five (5) working days after their dates of  termination, in violation of NYLL §195(6).   32.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs were not exempt under federal and state   laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime.    Plaintiff Wenlei Li   33.  From on or about August 1, 2017 to April 2, 2018, Plaintiff Li was employed by  Defendants and was hired as a warehouse helper and loader for SLR Food Distribution, Inc. located  at 100 Nassau Terminal Rd., New Hyde Park, NY 11040.   34.  Between on or about August 2017 and April 2, 2018, Plaintiff Li’s regular work  7  schedule ran from 8:20 am – 5:30 pm, with one forty-five (45) minute lunch break for six (6)  days from Monday to Saturday; therefore, Plaintiff Li worked eight (8) hours and twenty-five  (25) minutes per day.    35.  During this period, Plaintiff Li worked around fifty and one half (50.5) hours each  week.    36.  During this period, Plaintiff Li’s primary job was as a warehouse helper which  duties included packing, loading and organizing the warehouse’s inventory and products.    37.  During this period, Plaintiff Li’s pay was two thousand two hundred and sixty  ($2,260) dollars per month.    38.  During this period, Plaintiff Li was paid by check monthly.   39. During this period, Plaintiff Li was not compensated at one-and-one-half of the  minimum wage or his calculated regular rate, whichever is greater, for all hours worked above  forty (40) in each workweek.    40.  Plaintiff Li was not required to record his work hours such as punch time cards and  was not paid for all hours worked per week.    41.  Nor to Plaintiff Li's knowledge, that Defendants utilizes any time tracking device  such as punch cards or sign-in sheets.   42.  Plaintiff was not given wage statements for each of his pay period as required by  the law.   43.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for overtime compensation according to  state and federal laws.   44.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a wage notices at the time of his hiring.   8   45.  The warehouse manager, known as "Angela" to Plaintiff Li, interviewed Plaintiff  Li.   46.  Angela handled payrolls to Defendants' employees, including Plaintiff Li.  Plaintiff Yingjie Yin   47.  From on or about July 15, 2017, to November 30, 2017, Plaintiff Yin was employed  by Defendants and was hired as a warehouse helper and loader for SLR Food Distribution, Inc.  located at 100 Nassau Terminal Rd., New Hyde Park, NY 11040.   48.  Between on or about July 2017 and November 2017, Plaintiff Yin’s regular work  schedule ran from 8:20 am – 5:30 pm, with one forty-five (45) minute lunch break for six (6)  days from Monday to Saturday, therefore Plaintiff Yin worked eight (8) hours and twenty-five  (25) minutes per day.    49.  During this period, Plaintiff Yin worked around fifty and one half (50.5) hours each  week.    50.  During this period, Plaintiff Yin’s primary job was as a warehouse helper which  duties included packing, loading and organizing the warehouse’s inventory and products.    51.  During this period, Plaintiff Yin’s pay was two thousand two hundred and sixty  ($2,260) dollars per month.    52. During this period, Plaintiff Yin was not compensated at the rate of the minimum  wage or his calculated hourly wage, whichever is greater, for all hours worked within forty (40)  hours in each workweek.   53. During this period, Plaintiff Yin was not compensated at one-and-one-half of the  minimum wage or his calculated regular rate, whichever is greater, for all hours worked above  forty (40) in each workweek.   9   54.  Plaintiff Yin was not required to record his work hours such as punch time cards  and was not paid for all hours worked per week.    55.  Plaintiff Yin was not required to record his work hours such as punch time cards  and was not paid for all hours worked per week.    56.  Nor to Plaintiff Yin's knowledge, that Defendants utilizes any time tracking device  such as punch cards or sign-in sheets.   57.  Plaintiff Yin was not given a correct wage statement for each of his pay period as  required by the law.   58.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for overtime compensation according to  state and federal laws.   59.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a wage notices at the time of his hiring.   60.  Defendants committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiffs, the FLSA   Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class.   61.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying Plaintiffs either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage to  Plaintiffs or other similarly situated employees.    62.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not   paying Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time  and one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in violation of the FLSA  and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor  Regulations.   10   63.  Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all other and former non- exempt employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants at each their previous and  current business locations for up to the last three (3) years, through entry of judgment in this case  (the “Collective Action Period”) and whom failed to receive minimum wages, overtime  compensation (the “Collective Action Members”), and have been subject to the same common  decision, policy, and plan to not provide required wage notices at the time of hiring, in  contravention to federal and state labor laws.    64.  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 thirty (30) Collective Action members, who have worked for or have continued to work for  the Defendants 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).    65.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action   Members, and has retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the field of employment  law and class action litigation. Plaintiffs have no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with  those members of this collective action.   66.  This action should be certified as collective action because the prosecution of   separate action 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  11  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.    67.  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 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.    68.  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  Plaintiffs and other Collective Action Members are:   a. Whether the Defendants employed Collective Action members within the meaning of  the FLSA;   b. Whether the Defendants failed to pay the Collective Action Members overtime wages  for all hours worked above forty (40) each workweek in violation of the FLSA and the  regulation promulgated thereunder;   c. Whether the Defendants failed to provide the Collective Action Members with a wage  notice at the time of hiring as required by the NYLL;  d. Whether the Defendants’ violations of the FLSA are willful as that terms is used within  the context of the FLSA; and,   12  e. Whether the Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not  limited to compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements  and attorneys’ fees.    69.  Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this   litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.    70.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by   Defendants’ unlawful conduct.   71.  Plaintiffs brings their NYLL claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  (“F. R. C. P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt persons employed by Defendants at SLR Food  Distribution, Inc.  on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this  case as defined herein (the “Class Period”).    72.  All said persons, including Plaintiffs, are referred to herein as the “Class.” The  Class members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the Class members are  determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and worked, the positions held,  and the rate of pay for each Class Member is also determinable from Defendants’ records. For  purpose 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 said F.R.C.P 23.    73.  The proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,   and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parities and the Court. Although the  precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts on which the calculation of the number  is presently within the sole control of the Defendants, upon information and belief, there are more  than five (5) members of the class.   13   74.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those claims which could be alleged by any   member of the  Class,  and  the  relief  sought  is  typical  of  the  relief  that  would  be  sought  by  each member  of  the  Class  in  separate  actions.  All the Class members were subject to the same  corporate practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, of failing to pay overtime compensation.  Defendants’ corporation wide policies and practices, including  but  not  limited  to  their  failure   to provide a wage notice at the time of hiring, affected all Class members similarly, and Defendants  benefited from the same type of unfair and/ or wrongful acts as to each Class member. Plaintiff  and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same  unlawful policies, practices and procedures.    75.  Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has   no interests antagonistic to the Class. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys who are experienced  and competent in representing plaintiffs in both class action and wage and hour employment  litigation cases.     76.  A  class  action  is  superior  to  other  available  methods  for  the  fair  and    efficient adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation  where individual Class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute corporate   defendants.  Class  action  treatment  will  permit  a  large  number  of  similarly situated persons  to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently,  and  without  the   unnecessary  duplication  of  efforts and expenses that numerous individual actions engender. The  losses, injuries, and damages suffered by each of the individual Class members are small in the  sense pertinent to a class action analysis, thus the expenses and burden of individual litigation  would make it extremely difficult or impossible for the individual Class members to redress the  wrongs done to them.  Further, important public interests will be served by addressing the matter  14  as a class action.  The  adjudication  of  individual  litigation  claims would result in a great  expenditure  of  Court  and  public  resources;  however,  treating  the  claims  as  a  class action  would result in a significant saving of these costs.  The prosecution of separate actions by  individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications  with respect to the individual members of the Class, establishing incompatible standards of  conduct for Defendants and resulting in the impairment of class  members’  rights  and  the   disposition  of  their  interests  through  actions  to  which they were not parties.  The issues in this  action can be decided by means of common, class-wide proof.  In  addition,  if  appropriate,  the   Court  can,  and  is  empowered  to, fashion methods to efficiently manage this action as a class  action.     77.  Upon  information  and  belief,  defendants  and  other  employers  throughout    the state violate the New York Labor Law.  Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights  out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing claims because  doing so can harm their employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure employment.   Class actions provide class members who are not named in the complaint a degree of anonymity  which allows for the vindication of their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.     78.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over   any questions affecting only individual class members, including:    a. Whether Defendants employed Plaintiffs and the Class within the meaning of the New   York law;   b. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to overtime under the New York   Labor Law;    c. Whether Defendants maintained a policy, pattern and/or practice of failing to pay   15  Plaintiff  and  the  Rule  23  Class  spread-of-hours  pay  as  required  by  the NYLL;   d. Whether the Defendants provided wage notices at the time of hiring to Plaintiffs and   class members as required by the NYLL;  e. At what common rate, or rates subject to common method of calculation were and are   the Defendants required to pay the Class members for their work.  79.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though  fully set forth herein.    80.  At all relevant times, upon information and belief, Defendants have been, and  continue to  be,  “employers”  engaged  in  interstate  “commerce”  and/or  in  the  production  of  “goods”  for  “commerce,”  within  the  meaning  of  the  FLSA,  29  U.S.C.  §§206(a) and §§207(a).  Further, Plaintiffs are covered within the meaning of FLSA, U.S.C. §§206(a) and 207(a).    81.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed “employees” including Plaintiffs,  within the meaning of FLSA.    82.  Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants have had gross  revenues in excess of $500,000.    83.  The FLSA provides that any employer engaged in commerce shall pay employees  the applicable minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).   16   84.  At  all  relevant  times,  Defendants  had  a  policy  and  practice  of  refusing  to   pay  the statutory minimum wage to Plaintiffs, and the collective action members, for some or all  of the hours they worked.    85.  The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C.  §206 shall  be  liable  to  the  employees  affected  in  the  amount  of  their  unpaid  minimum  compensation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.    86.  Defendants  knowingly  and  willfully  disregarded  the  provisions  of  the  FLSA   as evidenced  by  failing  to  compensate  Plaintiffs and  Collective  Class  Members  at  the  statutory minimum wage when they knew or should have known such was due and that failing to  do so would financially injure Plaintiffs and Collective Action members.   87.  Plaintiffs  re-allege  and  incorporate  by  reference  all  preceding  paragraphs  as   though fully set forth herein.    88.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants within the meaning  of New York Labor Law §§2 and 651.    89.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay the minimum wage shall be liable, in addition to the amount of any underpayments, for  liquidated damages equal to the total of such under-payments found to be due the employee.    90.  Defendants knowingly and willfully violated Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights  by failing to pay them minimum wages in the lawful amount for hours worked.  91.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.    91.  Due to Defendants’ violations of New York Labor Law, Plaintiffs are entitled to  20  recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, $250 for each workday of the violation, up to  $5,000 for Plaintiff to get her with costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to New York Labor Law  N.Y. Lab. Law §198(1-d).  Prayer For Relief  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and the FLSA collective plaintiffs and  rule 23 class, respectfully request that this court enter a judgment providing the following relief:    a) Authorizing plaintiffs at the earliest possible time to give notice of this collective action,  or that the court issue such notice, to all persons who are presently, or have been employed  by defendants as non-exempt tipped or non-tipped employees. Such notice shall inform  them that the civil notice has been filed, of the nature of the action, of their right to join  this lawsuit if they believe they were denied proper hourly compensation and premium  overtime wages;   b) Certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure;   c) Designation of Plaintiffs as representatives of the Rule 23 Class, and counsel of record  as Class counsel;   d) Certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to FLSA;   e) Issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all similarly situated members of  the FLSA opt-in class, apprising them of the pendency of this action, and permitting them  to assert timely FLSA claims and state claims in this action by filing individual Consent to  Sue forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and appointing Plaintiffs and his counsel to  represent the Collective Action Members;    21  f) A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under FLSA  and New York Labor Law;   g)An injunction against SLR Food Distribution, Inc., its 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;   h) An award of unpaid wages and minimum wages due Plaintiffs and the Collective Action  members under the FLSA and New York Labor Law, plus compensatory and liquidated  damages in the amount of twenty five percent under NYLL §§190 et seq., §§650 et seq.,  and one hundred percent after April 9, 2011 under NY Wage Theft Prevention Act, and  interest;  i) An award of unpaid overtime wages due under FLSA and New York Labor Law;   j) An award of damages for Defendants’ failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring  as required under the New York Labor Law.  k) An award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’ knowing and  willful failure to pay  wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation pursuant to 29  92.  The FLSA provides that no employer engaged in commerce shall employ a   covered employee for a work week longer than forty (40) hours unless such employee receives  compensation for employment in excess of forty (40) hours at a rate not less than one and one-half  times the regular rate at which he or she is employed, or one and one-half times the minimum  wage, whichever is greater. 29 USC §207(a).    93.  The  FLSA  provides  that  any  employer  who  violates  the  provisions  of  29    U.S.C. §207 shall be liable to the employees affected in the amount of their unpaid overtime  compensation,  and  in  an  additional  equal  amount  as  liquidated  damages.  29 USC §216(b).    94.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective their overtime pay   violated the FLSA.    95.  At all relevant times, Defendants had, and continue to have, a policy of practice of   refusing  to  pay  overtime  compensation  at  the  statutory  rate  of  time  and  a  half  to Plaintiffs  and Collective Action Members for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours  per  workweek,   which  violated  and  continues  to  violate  the  FLSA,  29  U.S.C. §§201, et seq., including 29  U.S.C. §§207(a)(1) and 215(a).    96.  The FLSA and supporting regulations required employers to notify employees of   employment law requires employers to notify employment law requirements. 29 C.F.R. §516.4.    97.  Defendants willfully failed to notify Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective of the   requirements  of  the  employment  laws  in  order  to  facilitate  their  exploitation  of Plaintiffs’  and FLSA Collectives’ labor.   18   98.  Defendants knowingly and willfully disregarded the provisions of the FLSA    as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiffs and Collective Class Members the statutory  overtime rate of time and one half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week when they  knew or should have known such was due and that failing to do so would financially injure  Plaintiffs and Collective Action members.   99.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as   though fully set forth herein.   100.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to   pay proper overtime compensation shall be liable, in addition to the amount of any underpayments,  for liquidated damages equal to the total of such under-payments found to be due the employee.   101.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class their overtime pay   violated the NYLL.   102.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class was not in good faith.   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Class]   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage  17  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Time of Hire Wage Notice Requirement]  103.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.  104.  The NYLL and supporting regulations require employers to provide written notice   of the rate or rates of pay and the basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary,  piece, commission, or other allowances, if any, claimed as a part of minimum wage, including tip,  meal, or lodging allowances; the regular payday designated by the employer; the name of the  19  employer; any “doing business as” names used by the employer; the physical address of  employer’s main office or principal place of business, and a mailing address if different; the  telephone number of the employer.  NYLL §195-1(a).  105.  Defendants intentionally failed to provide notice to employees in violation of New   York Labor Law§195, which requires all employers to provide written notice in the employee’s  primary language about the terms and conditions of employment related to rate of pay, regular pay  cycle and rate of overtime on his or her first day of employment.  106.  Defendants not only did not provide notice to each employee at Time of Hire, but  failed to provide notice to Plaintiffs even after the fact.  107.  Due to Defendants’ violations of New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled  to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally,$50 for each workday that the violation occurred  or continued to occur ,up to $5,000, together with costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to New York  Labor Law. N.Y. Lab. Law §198(1-b).  [Violation of New York Labor Law—Overtime Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class]  