12. Prior to July 2015, Joseph Gallagher worked for Mercedes Benz, USA for 25 years.    13. His employment with Mercedes Benz, USA ended in July of 2015, when by way of false  promises and misrepresentations, he was lured away by Joe Pepe, the COO of Pepe Auto  Group, to accept a position of General Manager at Pepe’s, Mercedes- Benz of New  Rochelle store. Pepe stated that he sought out Gallagher due to his experience with  Mercedes Benz, and that Pepe wanted to minimize the employee turnover that has plagued  the store since its existence.    14. Pepe offered Gallagher a job working as his general manager for his New Rochelle  Mercedes Benz store (hereinafter referred to as “MBNR”).    15. In July of 2015, Gallagher entered into a three year employment agreement (hereinafter  referred to as the “Agreement”) with Joe Pepe and MBNR.   16. Throughout his employment with MBNR he was a loyal and hardworking employee.   17. Shortly after the two year mark of Gallagher’s employment, without any warning, Pepe  called Gallagher into his office to tell him that “it just isn’t working out.”   18. Pepe fired Gallagher that day without any reason, justification or prior warning.   19. Gallagher never received any written performance review, let alone one that identified any  areas of unsatisfactory performance or recommendations of improvements that he could  undertake.    20. To the contrary, Gallagher always received praise for his performance by Pepe and  72. Gallagher brings this collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b) seeking  liability-phase injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of a collective of all applicants  and deterred prospective applicants for employment ages 55 and older. Plaintiff also brings  this collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b) for monetary damages and  other make-whole relief on behalf of a collective of all applicants and deterred prospective  applicants for employment ages 55 and older in the United States at any time from October  18, 2013 through the resolution of this action for claims under the ADEA.    74. There are many similarly situated collective members who would benefit from the  issuance of a court-supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join the  present lawsuit. Notice should be sent to the collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b),  626(b).    75. As part of its regular business practice, MBNR has intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly  engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the ADEA with respect to  Plaintiff and the collective.    76. This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to:   a) willfully utilizing a biased recruiting system for entry-level accounting hiring that  excludes, deters, and discriminates against workers ages 55 and over; and   b) willfully implementing a termination policy that deters and discriminates against  applicants ages 55 and over for employment;   c) willfully refusing to hire applicants ages 55 and over for employment.    77. MBNR maintained and implemented these policies and practices with the purpose and  effect of denying Plaintiff and other members of the collective employment opportunities  because of their age.    78. These policies cannot be justified on the basis of reasonable factors other than age.  80. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the collective  he represents.    81. Defendants have a pattern and practice of presenting older employees with unlawful  release agreements that do not meet the standards required under the Older Workers  Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).  after advising them that they will be terminated from  their employment.    82. Defendants provided Plaintiff with a release that did not meet the standards required  under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).    83. Defendant’s general release did not refer to the rights or claims arising under the Age  Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).   84. Defendant’s general release did not advise the employee, in writing, to consult an  attorney before accepting the agreement.   85. Defendant’s general release did not provide the employee with at least 21 days to  consider the offer.    86. Defendant’s general release did not give Plaintiff seven days to revoke his signature.    87. Defendant’s general release did not include rights and claims that may arise after the  date on which the waiver was executed.    88. Defendant’s failure to execute a general release which complies with the OWBPA under  the ADEA is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights and thus, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for  damages.   90. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the collective  he represents.    91. Defendant employer discharged Plaintiff from his employment because of his age.   92. In doing this, Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and caused him harm    93. Plaintiff’s termination, because of his age, was not due to a bona fide occupational  qualification which is allowed under the law.    94. Defendants maintain discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices that have an  adverse impact on individuals ages 40 and older in violation of the ADEA and are not,  and cannot be, justified by reasonable factors other than age.    95. Defendants have maintained these discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices both  within and outside the liability period in this case.    96. As a direct result of Defendants’ discriminatory policies and/or practices as described  above, Plaintiff and the collective have suffered damages including, but not limited to,  lost past and future income, compensation, and benefits.   97. The foregoing policies, patterns, and/or practices have an unlawful disparate impact on  employees and prospective employees ages 40 and older in violation of by 29 U.S.C. §  623(a)(2).    98. Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter described.  Breach of Contract   Fiduciary Breaching Duty   106. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all prior allegations as if set forth at length herein.  107. Defendant had a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff as it was Plaintiff’s employer and  Plaintiff was not independently contracted or an at will employee.   108. Defendant injured Plaintiff and acted contrary to the interests of Plaintiff, to whom he  owed a duty of loyalty to.   109. Damages were directly caused by Defendant’s misconduct and thus, Defendant is liable  for those damages.   Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage  119. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all prior allegations as if set forth at length herein.  120. There was a clear business relationship between Plaintiff and Porsche.   121. Defendant interfered with this business relationship by speaking ill about Plaintiff’s  business performance.  122. Defendant acted with the sole purpose of harming Plaintiff and used dishonest, unfair  and improper means.  123. The harm done by Defendant caused injury to the relationship between Porsche and  Plaintiff.   Intentional Interference with Contractual Relationship   115. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all prior allegations as if set forth at length herein.  116. Defendant had knowledge of the employment contract between Porsche and Plaintiff.  117. Without reasonable justification or excuse, Defendant induced Porsche to break the  employment contract by providing them with negative information about Plaintiff  118. By reason of Defendant’s inducement, Plaintiff has sustained damages.   Malicious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage  128. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all prior allegations as if set forth at length herein.  129. There was a clear business relationship between Porsche and Plaintiff.  130. Defendant interfered with that business relationship by purposefully putting forward  undesirable and untrue facts about Plaintiff’s employment practices.  131. Defendant acted with the sole purpose of harming Plaintiff by using dishonest, unfair  and improper means.   132. Defendant’s dishonest and malicious means caused injury to Plaintiff’s relationship with  Porsche.   Unlawful Discriminatory Practices   NY CLS §290 et seq.   Violation of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act  29 U.S.C. §621 et seq.   Wrongful Discharge   104. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all prior allegations as if set forth at length herein.  105. Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff and thus the contract of hiring was broken and  Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for damages arising from this breach.  