Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION UNDER
`29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
`
`
`ECF Case
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`DANIEL TANNENBAUM, ESQ.
`580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820
`New York, New York 10036
`Telephone: (212) 457-1699
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------X
`WAI TING CHAN, JOANNA CHEN, NA
`LIN, JENNIFER SHUM, NAVITA SINGH,
`YUEXIN YANG individually and on behalf of
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, CLEAR19
`RAPID TESTING, LLC, CLEARMD, LLC
`ALI RASHAN, M.D. and SANDEEP KAUR
`WALIA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`-------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wai Ting Chan (“Plaintiff Chan” or “Ms. Chan”) Joanna Chen (“Plaintiff Chen” or “Ms.
`
`Chen”), Na Lin (“Plaintiff Lin” or “Ms. Lin”), Jennifer Shum (“Plaintiff Shum” or “Ms. Shum”),
`
`Navita Singh (“Plaintiff Singh” or “Ms. Singh”), Yuexin Yang (“Plaintiff Yang” or “Ms. Yang”)
`
`(collectively Plaintiffs), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, by and through
`
`their attorney DANIEL TANNENBAUM, ESQ., and as against CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS,
`
`LLC, CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING, LLC, CLEARMD, LLC, (“Defendant Corporations”) ALI
`
`RASHAN, M.D. (“Individual Defendant” or “Mr. Rashan”) and SANDEEP KAUR WALIA
`
`(“Individual Defendant” or “Ms. Walia”), (collectively, “Defendants”), allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
`
`CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING, LLC, CLEARMD, LLC, ALI RASHAN, M.D. and SANDEEP
`
`KAUR WALIA.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 2 of 25
`
`2.
`
` Defendants CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, and CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING,
`
`LLC own, operate, or control a medical company headquartered at 606 WEST 57TH, NEW
`
`YORK, NY, United States, 10019 operating under the name CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
`
`and CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING, LLC.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant CLEARMD, LLC owns, operates, or controls a medical company
`
`headquartered at 2007 Broadway, New York, NY 10023 operating under the name CLEARMD,
`
`LLC.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, individual Defendants ALI RASHAN, M.D. and
`
`SANDEEP KAUR WALIA, serve or served as owner, manager, principal, or agent of Defendant
`
`medical companies operating under the name CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, CLEAR19
`
`RAPID TESTING, LLC and CLEARMD, LLC and, through these corporate entities, operates or
`
`operated the business as a joint or unified enterprise.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Chan was employed as a Medical Assistant in New York, NY.
`
`Plaintiff Chen was employed as a Medical Assistant in New York, NY.
`
`Plaintiff Lin was employed as a Medical Assistant in New York, NY.
`
`Plaintiff Shum was employed as a Medical Assistant in New York, NY.
`
`Plaintiff Singh was employed as a Medical Assistant in New York, NY.
`
`Plaintiff Yang was employed as a Medical Assistant in New York, NY.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess
`
`of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours worked.
`
`13.
`
`Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate record keeping of the hours
`
`worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for hours worked.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 3 of 25
`
`14.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and
`
`practice of requiring Plaintiffs to work in excess of forty (40) hours per week without providing
`
`the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants’ conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated
`
`employees.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiffs now brings this action on behalf of themselves, and other similarly
`
`situated individuals, for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
`
`29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. (FLSA), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law §190 et seq. and 650 et
`
`seq. (the NYLL), overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at
`
`N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, §146-1.6 (herein the spread of Hours Wage Order),
`
`including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs seek certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of
`
`themselves, individually, and all other similarly situated employees and former employees of
`
`Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`18.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
`
`question) and the FLSA, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`19.
`
` Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because all, or
`
`a substantial portion of, the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district
`
`and Defendants operate a facility located in this district. Further, Plaintiffs were employed by
`
`Defendants in this district.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiffs now brings this action for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
`
`Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. (FLSA), and for violations of the N.Y.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 4 of 25
`
`Labor Law §190 et seq. and 650 et seq. (the NYLL), including applicable liquidated damages,
`
`interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff Chan is an adult individual residing in Kings County, New York.
`
`Plaintiff Chen is an adult individual residing in Kings County, New York.
`
`Plaintiff Lin is an adult individual residing in Kings County, New York.
`
`Plaintiff Shum is an adult individual residing in Kings County, New York.
`
`Plaintiff Singh is an adult individual residing in Queens County, New York.
`
`Plaintiff Yang is an adult individual residing in Queens County, New York.
`
`Plaintiff Chan was employed by Defendants CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
`
`CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING, LLC, CLEARMD, LLC, ALI RASHAN, M.D. and SANDEEP
`
`KAUR WALIA from approximately September 6, 2021 until on or about October 26, 2021.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Chen was employed by Defendants CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
`
`CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING, LLC, CLEARMD, LLC, ALI RASHAN, M.D. and SANDEEP
`
`KAUR WALIA from approximately September 30 2021 until on or about November 13, 2021.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Lin was employed by Defendants CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
`
`CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING, LLC, CLEARMD, LLC, ALI RASHAN, M.D. and SANDEEP
`
`KAUR WALIA from approximately March 26, 2021 until on or about. September 26, 2021.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff Shum was employed by Defendants CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
`
`CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING, LLC, CLEARMD, LLC, ALI RASHAN, M.D. and SANDEEP
`
`KAUR WALIA from approximately September 17 2021 until on or about November 2, 2021.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Singh was employed by Defendants CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
`
`CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING, LLC, CLEARMD, LLC, ALI RASHAN, M.D. and SANDEEP
`
`KAUR WALIA from approximately August 23, 2021 until on or about October 20, 2021.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 5 of 25
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff Yang was employed by Defendants CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
`
`CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING, LLC, CLEARMD, LLC, ALI RASHAN, M.D. and SANDEEP
`
`KAUR WALIA from approximately August 2, 2021 until on or about October 17, 2021.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiffs primary work location was at 1693 Broadway, New York, NY 10019.
`
`Plaintiffs consent to being party plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and
`
`brings these claims based upon the allegations herein as a representative party of a prospective
`
`class of similarly situated individuals under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`Defendants
`
`35.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendants own, operate, or control a medical company
`
`headquartered at 606 WEST 57TH, NEW YORK, NY, United States, 10019 operating under the
`
`name CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, and CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING, LLC.
`
`36.
`
`Upon information and belief, CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, and CLEAR19
`
`RAPID TESTING, LLC are domestic corporations existing under the laws of the State of New
`
`York.
`
`37.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendants own, operate, or control a medical company
`
`headquartered at 2007 Broadway New York NY 10023-5002 operating under the name
`
`CLEARMD, LLC.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, CLEARMD, LLC is a domestic corporation existing
`
`under the laws of the State of New York.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant ALI RASHAN, M.D. is an individual engaging (or who was engaged)
`
`in business in this judicial district during the relevant time period. Defendant ALI RASHAN,
`
`M.D. is sued individually in his capacity as owner, officer and/or agent of Defendant
`
`Corporations. Defendant ALI RASHAN, M.D. possesses or possessed operational control over
`
`Defendant Corporations, has or had an ownership interest in Defendant Corporations, or
`
`controlled significant functions of Defendant Corporations. He determines or determined the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 25
`
`wages and compensation of the employees of Defendants, including Plaintiffs, establishes or
`
`established the schedules of the employees, maintains employee records, and has or had the
`
`authority to hire and fire employees.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant SANDEEP KAUR WALIA is an individual engaging (or who was
`
`engaged) in business in this judicial district during the relevant time period. Defendant
`
`SANDEEP KAUR WALIA is sued individually in her capacity as owner, officer and/or agent of
`
`Defendant Corporations. Defendant SANDEEP KAUR WALIA possesses or possessed
`
`operational control over Defendant Corporations, has or had an ownership interest in Defendant
`
`Corporations, or controlled significant functions of Defendant Corporations. She determines or
`
`determined the wages and compensation of the employees of Defendants, including Plaintiffs,
`
`establishes or established the schedules of the employees, maintains employee records, and has
`
`or had the authority to hire and fire employees.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Defendants Constitute Joint Employers
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Defendants operate a medical company operating in New York. State.
`
`Individual Defendants, ALI RASHAN, M.D. and SANDEEP KAUR WALIA,
`
`possess or possessed operational control over Defendant Corporation, possess ownership
`
`interests in Defendant Corporations, and control significant functions of Defendant Corporations.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants are associated and joint employers, act in the interest of each other
`
`with respect to employees, pay employees by the same method, and share control over the
`
`employees.
`
`44.
`
`Individual Defendants possess substantial control over Plaintiffs’ working
`
`conditions, and over the policies and practices with respect to the employment and compensation
`
`of Plaintiffs.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 7 of 25
`
`45.
`
` Defendants jointly employed Plaintiffs are Plaintiffs’ employers within the
`
`meaning of 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. and the NYLL.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`In the alternative, Defendants constitute a single employer of Plaintiffs.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendants were Plaintiffs’ employers within the meaning
`
`of the FLSA and New York Labor Law. Defendants had the power to hire and fire Plaintiffs
`
`controlled the terms and conditions of employment, and determined the rate and method of any
`
`compensation in exchange for Plaintiffs’ services.
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, in each year from 2020 to 2021, Defendants had a
`
`gross annual volume of sales of not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail
`
`level that are separately stated).
`
`49.
`
`In addition, upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their enterprise were
`
`directly engaged in interstate commerce. As an example, numerous items that were used in the
`
`facility on a daily basis are goods produced outside of the State of New York.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Plaintiff Wai Ting Chan
`
`Plaintiff Chan was employed by Defendants from approximately September 6,
`
`51.
`
`2021 until on or about October 26, 2021.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants employed Plaintiff Chan as a medical assistant.
`
`Plaintiff Chan regularly handled goods in interstate commerce, such as tools,
`
`materials, and other supplies produced outside the State of New York.
`
`54.
`
`From approximately September 6, 2021 until on or about October 26, 2021,
`
`Plaintiff Chan’s schedule was approximately Monday 8am to 8pm and Tuesday 8am to 8pm.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff Chan would regularly work an additional 1 or 2 hours per scheduled
`
`workday.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 8 of 25
`
`56.
`
`Throughout her employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff Chan her wages by direct
`
`deposit.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Defendants paid Ms. Chan at the rate of $18 per hour.
`
`Plaintiffs Chen’s pay rate did not vary even when she was required to work
`
`overtime hours.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`Defendants did not grant Plaintiff Chan uninterrupted breaks or meal periods.
`
`Defendants did not provide Plaintiff Chan an accurate statement of wages, as
`
`required by NYLL 195(3).
`
`61.
`
`Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiff Chan of her rate of pay,
`
`employer’s regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL §195(1).
`
`62.
`
`Defendants reduced the hours worked and pay of Ms. Chan on or about October
`
`18, 2021 by approximately 3 hours.
`
`63.
`
`Defendants did not pay the final paycheck owed to Ms. Chan by the next regular
`
`pay date, or at any time, as required by NYLL §191(3).
`
`Plaintiff Joanna Chen
`
`Plaintiff Joanna Chen was employed by Defendants from approximately
`
`64.
`
`September 30, 2021 until on or about November 13, 2021.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants employed Plaintiff Chen as a medical assistant.
`
`Plaintiff Chen regularly handled goods in interstate commerce, such as tools,
`
`materials, and other supplies produced outside the State of New York.
`
`67.
`
`From approximately September 30, 2021 until on or about October 15 2021,
`
`Plaintiff Chen’s schedule was approximately 8:00 a.m. until on or about 2:00 p.m, Monday
`
`Tuesday and Wednesday and 2:00 p.m. until on or about 8:00 p.m on Fridays.
`
`68.
`
`From approximately October 15, 2021 until on or about November 13, 2021 From
`
`Plaintiff Chen’s schedule was approximately 8:00 a.m. until on or about 1:00 p.m, Monday and
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 9 of 25
`
`Wednesday, 8:00 a.m. until on or about 8:00 p.m, Tuesdays, and 3:00 p.m. until on or about
`
`8:00 p.m Wednesday day per week.
`
`69.
`
`Throughout her employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff Chen her wages by direct
`
`deposit.
`
`70.
`
`From approximately September 30, 2021 until on or about November 13, 2021 at
`
`the rate of $18 per hour.
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiffs Chen’s pay rate did not vary even when she was required to work
`
`overtime hours.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Defendants did not grant Plaintiff Chen uninterrupted breaks or meal periods.
`
`Defendants did not provide Plaintiff Chen an accurate statement of wages, as
`
`required by NYLL 195(3).
`
`74.
`
`Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiff Chen of her rate of pay,
`
`employer’s regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL §195(1).
`
`75.
`
`Defendants reduced the hours worked and pay of Ms. Chen on or about October
`
`18, 2021 by approximately 3 hours.
`
`76.
`
`Defendants did not pay the final paycheck owed to Ms. Chen by the next regular
`
`pay date, or at any time, as required by NYLL §191(3).
`
`Plaintiff Na Lin
`
`Plaintiff Na Lin was employed by Defendants from approximately March 26,
`
`77.
`
`2021 until on or about September 26, 2021.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`Defendants employed Plaintiff Lin as a medical assistant.
`
`Plaintiff Lin regularly handled goods in interstate commerce, such as tools,
`
`materials, and other supplies produced outside the State of New York.
`
`80.
`
`From approximately March 2021 until on or about April 15 2021 Plaintiff Lin’s
`
`schedule was Fridays 12pm - 8pm, Saturday 10am- 3pm, and Sunday 10am-6pm. Starting April
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 10 of 25
`
`16th Plaintiff Lin’s schedule was Friday 8am- 8pm, Saturday 10am - 4pm, and Sunday 10am-
`
`6pm. Starting May 16th Plaintiff Lin’s schedule was Sunday 10am- 6pm, Thursday 2pm - 8pm
`
`and Friday 8am - 8pm. Starting June 1st Plaintiff Lin’s schedule was Monday 2pm- 8pm,
`
`Thursday 2pm- 8pm, Friday 8am- 8pm and Sunday 10am- 6pm. Starting July 8, 2021 Plaintiff
`
`Lin’s schedule was Monday 2pm- 8pm Thursday 8am- 8pm Friday 8am- 8pm and Sunday 10am-
`
`6pm. Starting August 26th Plaintiff Lin worked Thursday 8am-8pm and Sunday 10am-6pm.
`
`81.
`
` Plaintiff Lin would regularly work an additional 1 or 2 hours per scheduled
`
`workday.
`
`82.
`
`Throughout her employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff Lin her wages by direct
`
`deposit.
`
`83.
`
`From approximately March 2021 until on or about May 1, 2021 Defendants paid
`
`Plaintiff Lin on an hourly basis, at the rate of $15.50 per hour; Starting May 1st at the rate of
`
`$16.50 per hour; Starting July 15 at the rate of $18 per hour and Starting August 16 until
`
`September 26, 2021 at the rate of $22 per hour.
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiffs Lin’s pay rate did not vary when she was required to work overtime
`
`hours.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`Defendants did not grant Plaintiff Lin uninterrupted breaks or meal periods.
`
`Defendants did not provide Plaintiff Lin an accurate statement of wages, as
`
`required by NYLL 195(3).
`
`87.
`
`Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiff Lin of her rate of pay, employer’s
`
`regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL §195(1).
`
`Plaintiff Jennifer Shum
`
`Plaintiff Shum was employed by Defendants from approximately September 17,
`
`88.
`
`2021 until on or about November 2, 2021.
`
`89.
`
`Defendants employed Plaintiffs as a Medical Assistant.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 11 of 25
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiff Shum regularly handled goods in interstate commerce, such as tools,
`
`materials, and other supplies produced outside the State of New York.
`
`91.
`
`From approximately September 17, 2021 until on or about November 4, 2021,
`
`Plaintiff Shum’s schedule was Wednesdays 8am-4pm, Thursdays 8am-4pm, Fridays 8am-8pm,
`
`and Saturday 10am-6pm.
`
`92.
`
`Throughout her employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff Shum her wages by direct
`
`deposit.
`
`93.
`
` Plaintiff Shum would regularly work an additional 1 or 2 hours per scheduled
`
`workday.
`
`94.
`
`Defendants reduced the hours worked and pay of Ms. Shum on or about October
`
`18, 2021 by approximately 3 hours.
`
`95.
`
`96.
`
`Defendants paid Plaintiff Shum on an hourly basis, at the rate of $18.00 per hour.
`
`Plaintiffs Shum’s pay rate did not vary even when she was required to work
`
`overtime hours.
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`Defendants did not grant Plaintiff Shum uninterrupted breaks or meal periods.
`
`Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs an accurate statement of wages, as required
`
`by NYLL 195(3).
`
`99.
`
`Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiffs of her rate of pay, employer’s
`
`regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL §195(1).
`
`100.
`
`Defendants did not pay the final paycheck owed to Ms. Chen by the next regular
`
`pay date, or at any time, as required by NYLL §191(3).
`
`Plaintiff Navita Singh
`
`Plaintiff Singh was employed by Defendants from approximately August 23,
`
`101.
`
`2021 until on or about October 20, 2021.
`
`102.
`
`Defendants employed Plaintiffs as a medical assistant.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 12 of 25
`
`103.
`
`Plaintiffs regularly handled goods in interstate commerce, such as tools, materials,
`
`and other supplies produced outside the State of New York.
`
`104.
`
`From approximately August 23, 2021 until on or about October 20, 2021 Plaintiff
`
`Singh’s schedule was from approximately 2pm - 8pm Mondays, 8am-8pm Tuesdays, 8am - 2pm
`
`Wednesday, 2pm - 8pm Thursday, and 10 am - 6pm Saturday.
`
`105.
`
` Plaintiff Singh would regularly work an additional 1 or 2 hours per scheduled
`
`workday.
`
`106.
`
`Throughout her employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff Singh her wages by direct
`
`deposit.
`
`107.
`
`Defendants paid Plaintiff Singh on an hourly basis, at the rate of $22.00 per hour.
`
`108.
`
`Plaintiffs Singh’s pay rate did not vary when she was required to work overtime
`
`hours.
`
`109.
`
`Defendants did not grant Plaintiff Shum uninterrupted breaks or meal periods.
`
`110.
`
`Defendants reduced the hours worked and pay of Ms. Singh on or about October
`
`18, 2021 by approximately 3 hours.
`
`111.
`
`Defendants did not provide Plaintiff Singh an accurate statement of wages, as
`
`required by NYLL 195(3).
`
`112.
`
`Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiff Singh of her rate of pay,
`
`employer’s regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL §195(1).
`
`113.
`
`Defendants did not pay the final paycheck owed to Ms. Singh by the next regular
`
`pay date, or at any time, as required by NYLL §191(3).
`
`Plaintiff Yuexin Yang
`
`Plaintiff Yang was employed by Defendants from approximately August 2, 2021
`
`114.
`
`until on or about October 17, 2021.
`
`115. Defendants employed Plaintiff Yang as a medical assistant.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 13 of 25
`
`116. Plaintiff Yang regularly handled goods in interstate commerce, such as tools,
`
`materials, and other supplies produced outside the State of New York.
`
`117. From approximately From August 2, 2021 to August 27, 2021 Plaintiff Yang
`
`worked Thursdays and Fridays from approximately , Sundays and Mondays (4 days) 8:00 am to
`
`8:00 pm, Sundays from approximately 10:00 am to 6:00 pm, and Monday from approximately
`
`8:00 am to 2:00 pm. In September and October Plaintiff Yang worked 3 days; On Sunday
`
`approximately 10:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday approximately 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, and Tuesday
`
`approximately 12pm to 8pm.
`
`118. Plaintiff Yang would regularly work an additional 1 or 2 hours per scheduled
`
`workday.
`
`119.
`
`Defendants paid Plaintiff Yang on an hourly basis, at the rate of $22.00 per hour.
`
`120.
`
`Plaintiffs Yang’s pay rate did not vary when she was required to work overtime
`
`hours.
`
`121.
`
`Defendants did not grant Plaintiff Yang uninterrupted breaks or meal periods.
`
`122.
`
`Defendants reduced the hours worked by Ms. Yang on or about October 18, 2021
`
`by approximately 3 hours.
`
`123.
`
`Defendants did not provide Plaintiff Yang an accurate statement of wages, as
`
`required by NYLL 195(3).
`
`124.
`
`Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiff Yang of her rate of pay,
`
`employer’s regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL §195(1).
`
`125.
`
`Defendants did not pay the final paycheck owed to Ms. Yang by the next regular
`
`pay date, or at any time, as required by NYLL §191(3).
`
`126. Ms. Yang raised issues regarding her unpaid overtime and the changing of her
`
`timesheets by Ms. Walia, to Ms. Walia.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 14 of 25
`
`127. Ms. Yang related to Ms. Walia that if matters could not be resolved she would
`
`consider going to the Department of Labor for assistance.
`
`128.
`
`Soon thereafter Ms. Yang’s employment was terminated.
`
`Defendants’ General Employment Practices
`
`129.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and
`
`practice of requiring Plaintiffs (and all similarly situated employees) to work in excess of 40
`
`hours a week without paying them appropriate overtime compensation as required by federal and
`
`state laws.
`
`130.
`
`Plaintiffs were a victim of Defendants’ common policy and practices which
`
`violate their rights under the FLSA and New York Labor Law by, inter alia, not paying them the
`
`wages owed for the hours worked.
`
`131.
`
`Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded recordkeeping
`
`requirements of the FLSA and NYLL by failing to maintain accurate and complete timesheets
`
`and payroll records.
`
`132.
`
`Upon information and belief, these practices by Defendants were done willfully to
`
`disguise the actual number of hours Plaintiffs worked, and to avoid paying Plaintiffs properly for
`
`their full hours worked.
`
`133.
`
`Defendants engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of
`
`minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation by knowingly violating the FLSA
`
`and NYLL.
`
`134.
`
`Defendants’ unlawful conduct was intentional, willful, in bad faith, and caused
`
`significant damages to Plaintiffs (and all similarly situated employees).
`
`135.
`
`Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements at the time
`
`of their payment of wages, containing: the dates of work covered by that payment of wages;
`
`name of employee; name of employer; address and phone number of employer; rate or rates of
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 15 of 25
`
`pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or
`
`other; gross wages; deductions; allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage; net
`
`wages; the regular hourly rate or rates of pay; the overtime rate or rates of pay; the number of
`
`regular hours worked; and the number of overtime hours worked, as required by NYLL §195(3).
`
`FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIMS
`
`136.
`
` Plaintiffs brings their FLSA minimum wage, overtime compensation, and
`
`liquidated damages claims as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. §
`
`216(b), on behalf of all similarly situated persons (the “FLSA Class members”), i.e., persons
`
`who are or were employed by Defendants or any of them, on or after the date that is three years
`
`before the filing of the complaint in this case (the “FLSA Class Period”).
`
`137.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and other members of the FLSA Class were
`
`similarly situated in that they had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and
`
`have been subject to Defendants’ common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols
`
`and plans including willfully failing and refusing to pay them the required minimum wage,
`
`overtime pay at a one and one-half their regular rates for work in excess of forty (40) hours per
`
`workweek under the FLSA, and willfully failing to keep records under the FLSA.
`
`138.
`
`The claims of Plaintiffs stated herein are similar to those of the other employees.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE FLSA
`
`139.
`
`Plaintiffs repeats and reallege all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
`
`140.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were Plaintiffs’ employers within
`
`the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). Defendants had the power to
`
`hire and fire Plaintiffs (and the FLSA Class Members), controlled the terms and conditions of
`
`employment, and determined the rate and method of any compensation in exchange for their
`
`employment.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 16 of 25
`
`141.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were engaged in commerce or in
`
`an industry or activity affecting commerce.
`
`142.
`
`Defendants constitute an enterprise within the meaning of the Fair Labor
`
`Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 203 (r-s).
`
`143.
`
`Defendants, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C. § 203 et seq.,
`
`failed to pay Plaintiffs’ overtime compensation at rates of one and one-half times the regular rate
`
`of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in a work week.
`
`144.
`
`Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation was willful within the
`
`meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
`
`145.
`
`Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS
`
`OF THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR LAW
`
`146.
`
` Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
`
`147.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were Plaintiffs’ employers within
`
`the meaning of the N.Y. Lab. Law § 2 and 651. Defendants had the power to hire and fire
`
`Plaintiffs, control terms and conditions of employment, and determine the rates and methods of
`
`any compensation in exchange for employment.
`
`148.
`
`Defendants, in violation of N.Y. Lab. Law § 190 et seq., and supporting
`
`regulations of the New York State Department of Labor, failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime
`
`compensation at rates of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in
`
`excess of forty hours in a work week.
`
`149.
`
`Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation was willful within the
`
`meaning of N.Y. Lab. Law § 663.
`
`150.
`
`Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 17 of 25
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`VIOLATION OF THE NOTICE AND RECORDKEEPING
`
`REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW
`
`151.
`
` Plaintiffs repeats and reallege all paragraphs above as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`152.
`
`Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with a written notice, in English,
`
`containing: the rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week,
`
`salary, piece, commission, or other; allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage,
`
`including tip, meal, or lodging allowances; the regular pay day designated by the employer; the
`
`name of the employer; any “doing business as" names used by the employer; the physical
`
`address of the employer's main office or principal place of business, and a mailing address if
`
`different; and the telephone number of the employer, as required by NYLL §195(1).
`
`153.
`
`Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 each, together with
`
`costs and attorneys’ fees.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`VIOLATION OF THE WAGE STATEMENT PROVISIONS
`
`OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW
`
`154.
`
` Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
`
`155. With each payment of wages, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with an
`
`accurate statement listing each of the following: the dates of work covered by that payment of
`
`wages; name of employee; name of employer; address and phone number of employer; rate or
`
`rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece,
`
`commission, or other; gross wages; deductions; allowances, if any, claimed as part of the
`
`minimum wage; net wages; the regular hourly rate or rates of pay; the overtime rate or rates of
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 18 of 25
`
`pay; the number of regular hours worked; and the number of overtime hours worked, as required
`
`by NYLL 195(3).
`
`156.
`
`Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 each, together with
`
`costs and attorneys’ fees.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`FLSA – RETALIATION
`
`
`
`157.
`
`158.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and realleges all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendants have willfully violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA,
`
`which prohibit “any person” from “discharging or in any other manner discriminating
`
`against an employee because that employee has engaged in protected conduct.” 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 215(a)(3).
`
`159.
`
`Plaintiff Yang is an “employee” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§
`
`203(a) and 215(a)(3).
`
`160.
`
`The Defendants are “persons” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e)(1) and
`
`215(a)(3), are each subject to liability for retaliatory conduct.
`
`161.
`
`Plaintiff Yang engaged in protected conduct by raising issues regarding her
`
`unpaid overtime and the changing of timesheets by Ms. Walia.
`
`162. Ms. Yang engaged in protected conduct by reporting these concerns to Ms. Walia.
`
`163. Ms. Yang engaged in protected conduct by relating to Ms. Walia that if matters
`
`could not be resolved she would consider going to the Department of Labor for assistance.
`
`164.
`
`Defendants took adverse action against Plaintiff Yang in response to these
`
`protected activities.
`
`165.
`
`Plaintiff Yang has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-09687 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 19 of 25
`
`
`
`NYLL – RETALATION
`
`166.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and realleges all p