throbber
Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 1 of 31
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`Index No.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION
`& RULE 23 CLASS ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`····························································· ··X
`AHMED HEGAZY. SHRIEF SROR, RAMIZ
` :
`SHEHATTA, WALID SOLTAN, AHMED
` :
`ABOUELKHAIR, and AHMED MONEIM on
` :
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly
` :
`situated,
` :
`
` :
`
` :
`
` :
`
` :
`THE HALAL GUYS, INC., ALL 53 SW INC.,
` :
`NIGHT 53 SE INC., THE HALAL GUYS
` :
`FRANCHISE INC., ALTAWHID FOOD
` :
`SUPPLY INC., AHMED ELSAKA,
` :
`ABDELBASET ELSAYED, MOHAMED
` X
`ABOUELENEIN a/k/a MOHAMMED
`ABOUELENEIN, AHMED ABOUELENEIN, and
`ABDULLAH ABOUELENEIN,
`
` Defendants.
`·····························································
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs AHMED HEGAZY, SHRIEF SROR, RAMIZ SHEHATTA, WALID
`
`SOLTAN, AHMED ABOUELKHAIR, and AHMED MONEIM (“Plaintiffs”), by and through
`
`their attorneys, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege, upon personal
`
`knowledge as to themselves, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves and other employees similarly
`
`situated, against Defendants THE HALAL GUYS, INC., ALL 53 SW INC., NIGHT 53 SE INC.,
`
`THE HALAL GUYS FRANCHISE INC., ALTAWHID FOOD SUPPLY INC., AHMED
`
`ELSAKA, ABDELBASET ELSAYED, MOHAMED ABOUELENEIN, AHMED
`
`ABOUELENEIN, and ABDULLAH ABOUELENEIN, (collectively referred to herein as
`
`“Defendants”) to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (“FLSA”), 29
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 2 of 31
`
`U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and similarly situated employees, declaratory
`
`and injunctive relief, unpaid wages including unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees, costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the FLSA
`
`and other applicable federal law.
`
`2.
`
` Plaintiffs also bring this action, on behalf of themselves and other employees
`
`similarly situated, to remedy violations of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), including NYLL
`
`§ 190 et seq., § 650 et seq., including 663(1), and 12 NYCRR § 146. Plaintiffs seek, for themselves
`
`and all other similarly situated employees, declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid wages
`
`including unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours pay, reimbursement of the costs of purchasing
`
`required uniforms, tips/gratuities retained by Defendants, interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees,
`
`costs, liquidated damages, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the
`
`NYLL §§ 198, 663 and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs also bring this action, on behalf of themselves and other employees
`
`similarly situated, to remedy violations of NYLL § 195(1) and (3). Plaintiffs seek, for themselves
`
`and all other similarly situated employees, statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’
`
`fees, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the NYLL § 198(1-b) and (1-
`
`d).
`
`
`
`4.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Jurisdiction of the Court over Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims is invoked pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`5.
`
`Jurisdiction of this Court over Plaintiffs’ NYLL claims is invoked pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1367(a) in that the NYLL claims are so related to Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims as to form the
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 3 of 31
`
`same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper within this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because
`
`Defendants do business in, and accordingly reside in, this District. Venue is further proper within
`
`this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions
`
`giving rise to the claims occurred within this District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`6.
`
`York.
`
`Plaintiff AHMED HEGAZY resides in the County of Queens in the State of New
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Hegazy was employed by Defendants as a Food Server/Food Vendor, as
`
`described herein, from in or about July, 2014 until in or about the end of March, 2020.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff SHRIEF SROR resides in the County of Queens in the State of New York.
`
`Plaintiff Sror was employed by Defendants as a Food Server/Food Vendor, as
`
`described herein, from in or about 2009 until in or about July 2017.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff RAMIZ SHEHATTA resides in the State of Tennessee.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Shehatta was employed by Defendants as a Food Server/Food Vendor, as
`
`described herein, from in or about May 2013 until in or about March 15, 2020.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff WALID SOLTAN resides in the County of Kings in the State of New
`
`York.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Soltan was employed by Defendants as a Food Server/Food Vendor, as
`
`described herein, from in or about May 2015 until March, 2018.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff AHMED ABOUELKHAIR resides in the State of New Jersey.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Abouelkhair was employed by Defendants as a Food Server/Food Vendor,
`
`as described herein, from in or about December 2010 until in or about March, 2020
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 4 of 31
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff AHMED MONEIM resides in the State of New Jersey.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Moneim was employed by Defendants as a Food Server/Food Vendor
`
`starting in or about October of 2015. In addition to employing Plaintiff Moneim as a Food
`
`Server/Food Vendor, Defendants also employed Plaintiff Moneim as a hands-on, trainer beginning
`
`in 2016.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Moneim’s employment with Defendants ended in or around November
`
`2020.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant THE HALAL GUYS, INC. is a New York Domestic Business
`
`Corporation registered in the State of New York with its principal executive office located in
`
`Astoria, New York, in the County of Queens.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant ALL 53 SW INC. is a New York Domestic Business Corporation
`
`registered in the State of New York with its principal place of business in Astoria, New York,
`
`located in the County of Queens.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant NIGHT 53 SE INC. is a New York Domestic Business Corporation
`
`registered in the State of New York with its principal executive office in Astoria, New York, in
`
`the County of Queens.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant THE HALAL GUYS FRANCHISE INC. is registered to do business in
`
`the State of New York as a foreign for profit corporation. Defendant The Halal Guys Franchise
`
`Inc. is incorporated in the State of New Jersey.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant ALTAWHID FOOD SUPPLY INC. is a New York Domestic Business
`
`Corporation registered in the State of New York with its principal executive office in Astoria, New
`
`York, in the County of Queens.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 5 of 31
`
`24.
`
`Defendants THE HALAL GUYS, INC., ALL 53 SW INC., NIGHT 53 SE INC.,
`
`THE HALAL GUYS FRANCHISE INC., and ALTAWHID FOOD SUPPLY INC. (collectively
`
`the “Halal Guys” or the “Corporate Defendants”) operate as a joint enterprise with unified
`
`operation and common control to achieve a common business purpose as defined by the FLSA.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 203(r).
`
`25.
`
`Defendant AHMED ELSAKA (“Defendant Elsaka”) is the owner, manager, and/or
`
`operator of each of the Corporate Defendants.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant Elsaka had, and has, the power to hire, fire, and set the wages and hours
`
`of all the employees of the Corporate Defendants, including Plaintiffs and others similarly situated,
`
`and regularly supervised Plaintiffs and the other employees working for the Corporate Defendants.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant ABDELBASET ELSAYED (“Defendant Elsayed”) is the owner,
`
`manager, and/or operator of each of the Corporate Defendants.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant Elsayed had, and has, the power to hire, fire, and set the wages and hours
`
`of all the employees of the Corporate Defendants, including Plaintiffs and others similarly situated,
`
`and regularly supervised Plaintiffs and the other employees working for the Corporate Defendants.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant MOHAMED ABOUELENEIN a/k/a MOHAMMED ABOUELENEIN
`
`(“Defendant Abouelenein”) is the owner, manager, and/or operator of each of the Corporate
`
`Defendants.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Abouelenein is registered with the Secretary of State of the State of New
`
`York as the Chief Executive Officer of Defendants THE HALAL GUYS, INC. and ALTAWHID
`
`FOOD SUPPLY INC.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant Abouelenein had, and has, the power to hire, fire, and set the wages and
`
`hours of all the employees of the Corporate Defendants, including Plaintiffs and others similarly
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 6 of 31
`
`situated, and regularly supervised Plaintiffs and the other employees working for the Corporate
`
`Defendants.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant AHMED ABOUELENEIN (“Defendant Ahmed Abouelenein”) is the
`
`owner, manager, operator of Defendants, and/or CEO of each of the Corporate Defendants.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant Ahmed Abouelenein is registered with the Secretary of State of the State
`
`of New York as the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant THE HALAL GUYS FRANCHISE
`
`INC.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant Ahmed Abouelenein had, and regularly exercised, the power to hire,
`
`fire, and set the wages and hours of all the employees of the Corporate Defendants, including
`
`Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, and regularly supervised Plaintiffs and the other employees
`
`working for the Corporate Defendants.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant ABDULLAH ABOUELENEIN (“Defendant Abdullah Abouelenein”)
`
`is the owner, manager, and/or operator of each of the Corporate Defendants.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant Abdullah Abouelenein had, and regularly exercised, the power to hire,
`
`fire, and set the wages and hours of all the employees of the Corporate Defendants., including
`
`Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, and regularly supervised Plaintiffs and the other employees
`
`working for the Corporate Defendants and determined how much each of them received in tips
`
`each week.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants grossed more than $500,000.00 in each of the last six calendar years.
`
`38.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, the activities of the Defendants jointly and separately
`
`constituted an “enterprise” within the meaning of § 3(r) & (s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (r) &
`
`(s).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 7 of 31
`
`39.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendants employed employees, including Plaintiffs
`
`and the members of the FLSA Collective, who were employed by Defendants’ enterprise engaged
`
`in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce or in handling, selling or otherwise
`
`working on goods and materials which have moved in or been produced for commerce within the
`
`meaning of § 3(b), (g), (i), (j) (r) and (s)(A)(i) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(b), (g), (i), (j), (r), &
`
`(s)(A)(i).
`
`40.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendants have been, and continue to be, an
`
`“enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” within the meaning
`
`of 29 U.S.C. § 203 and 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).
`
`41.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendants have been, and continue to be, an
`
`“employer” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(D) and by the NYLL §190(3). At all times relevant
`
`hereto, Defendants have employed “employee[s]”, including Plaintiffs and each of the members
`
`of the FLSA Collective and Class Members.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`42.
`
`Defendants operate what they call a “global enterprise, with over 400+ new
`
`restaurants in development worldwide” serving American Halal food throughout New York City
`
`and around the world.1
`
`43.
`
`Defendants advertise that their mission is to “delight each of our customers
`
`with unparalleled hospitality and mouthwatering food at great prices”.2
`
`
`1 https://thehalalguys.com/about-us/#where-we-are-growing - accessed January 5, 2021.
`2 https://thehalalguys.com/about-us/#mission-vision – accessed January 5, 2021
`7
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 8 of 31
`
`44.
`
`To prepare and serve their food and drinks, Defendants employed and continue to
`
`employ numerous Food Servers/Food Vendors, including Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA
`
`Collective, and the Class Members.
`
`HOURS OF WORK & PAYRATES
`
`45.
`
`Defendants operate their food-carts and restaurants almost twenty-four (24) hours
`
`a day.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants employed Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the Class
`
`Members to work five or six – or sometimes seven – shifts each week. These shifts averaged ten
`
`or more hours per day.
`
`47.
`
`Until in or around the beginning of 2018, Defendants paid Plaintiffs, members of
`
`the FLSA Collective, and the Class Members a flat rate for each day worked regardless of the
`
`number of hours worked.
`
`48.
`
`Although Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the Class Members
`
`regularly worked as many as sixty hours or more per week, in violation of the FLSA and the
`
`NYLL, during the period that that they paid Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the
`
`Class Members a day rate, Defendants never paid them overtime at the rate of one and one half
`
`times their regular hourly rate for the hours over forty that they worked in a workweek.
`
`49.
`
`Even after they started to pay Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the
`
`Class Members an hourly rate, Defendants continued to pay some employees a flat day rate without
`
`overtime.
`
`50.
`
`For example, at the end of May 2018, Defendants had Plaintiff Shehatta sign a letter
`
`that stated that he was no longer employed by Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 9 of 31
`
`51.
`
`After Plaintiff Shehatta signed the letter, Defendants continued to employ Plaintiff
`
`Shehatta, but paid him a flat day rate with no overtime premium—in cash.
`
`52.
`
`Even after they started paying Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the
`
`Class Members hourly rates of pay, Defendants only paid them for some – but not all – of their
`
`overtime hours.
`
`53.
`
`In or about the middle of 2019, Defendants began using a time clock. Plaintiffs and
`
`their co-workers were instructed to use the last four digits of their phone numbers to clock in and
`
`out.
`
`54.
`
`However, Defendants did not record all work time – and Defendants often
`
`instructed Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the Class Members to start working
`
`before the beginning of their shift and/or to clock out before their work was done. For example,
`
`Plaintiff Hegazy was instructed by Defendants to clock out when he finished his work at the food
`
`cart, although Defendants required him to continue working off-the-clock and take the money from
`
`the night shift and drive their vehicle to their Queens warehouse.
`
`55.
`
`As detailed above, Defendants failed to keep accurate and sufficient time records
`
`as required by Federal and State laws.
`
`56.
`
`Defendants failed to post or keep posted notices explaining the rights of employees
`
`under the FLSA and NYLL, causing Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective and the Class Members to be
`
`uninformed of their rights.
`
`57.
`
`Defendants committed the foregoing acts knowingly, intentionally and willfully
`
`against the Plaintiffs, the members of the FLSA Collective and the Class Members.
`
`NEW YORK LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS
`
`Gratuities
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 10 of 31
`
`58.
`
`Customers at Defendants’ food carts and restaurants often paid extra money for
`
`their food as a gratuity for the employees.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants had a standard practice of combining the money that customers paid as
`
`a gratuity with the money that the customers paid for their food.
`
`60.
`
`At the end of the work shifts, it was impossible to determine accurately how much
`
`money had been intended by the customers as payment for food and how much money had been
`
`intended to go to the employees.
`
`61.
`
`Each day, Defendants would take all the money—both the money for food and the
`
`money intended as gratuities for the employees.
`
`62.
`
`Each week, when Defendants paid Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and
`
`the Class Members, Defendants would pay them some—but not all—of the money intended by
`
`the customers as a gratuity as a “bonus.”
`
`63.
`
`In violation of section 196-d of the NYLL and section 146-2.18 of the
`
`implementing Hospitality Industry Wage Order, Defendants kept some of the gratuities for
`
`themselves.
`
`64.
`
`Furthermore, Defendants would pick and choose which employees received the
`
`gratuities, giving more to employees they favored and less, or even none, to disfavored employees.
`
`Spread of Hours
`
`65.
`
`Defendants regularly scheduled Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and
`
`the Class Members to work shifts of more than ten hours.
`
`66.
`
`Despite the spread of hours requirements of the NYLL and its implementing
`
`regulations, Defendants never paid Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the Class
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 11 of 31
`
`Members an additional hour of pay at the minimum hourly rate for these long shifts as required by
`
`12 NYCRR § 146-1.6.
`
`Uniforms
`
`67.
`
`Defendants required Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the Class
`
`Members to wear uniforms when working at their food carts and restaurants.
`
`68.
`
`Defendants did not supply Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the
`
`Class Members with sufficient uniforms to enable them to have a clean uniform each day that they
`
`worked.
`
`69.
`
`Serving and preparing food throughout the long shifts worked by Plaintiffs,
`
`members of the FLSA Collective, and the Class Members caused the uniforms to quickly become
`
`dirty and damaged.
`
`70.
`
`If a uniform was damaged, or Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the
`
`Class Members needed additional uniforms to enable them to wear a clean uniform each day during
`
`the six or seven days a week that they worked, Defendants did not provide extra uniforms and
`
`required Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the Class Members to pay for the
`
`replacement or additional uniforms. Defendants never reimbursed Plaintiffs, members of the
`
`FLSA Collective, and the Class Members for these uniforms that they were required to buy.
`
`Notice Violations
`
`71.
`
`Prior to 2018, Defendants never provided Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA
`
`Collective, and the Class Members a notice in writing of their wage and overtime rate at the time
`
`that they were hired, as required by section 195(1) of the NYLL. Even after Defendants began to
`
`provide employees with the required notices, they did not provide all employees that they hired
`
`with these notices.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 12 of 31
`
`72.
`
`Prior to 2018, Defendants regularly paid Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA
`
`Collective, and the Class Members in cash for some or all of their work and did not provide
`
`Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the Class Members with any wage statements or
`
`provided them with wage statements that included only part of their pay.
`
`73.
`
`Even after Defendants, began to provide wage statements to Plaintiffs, members of
`
`the FLSA Collective, and the Class Members that included all of their pay, Defendants did not
`
`provide wage statements that included all the hours worked by Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA
`
`Collective, and the Class Members.
`
`74.
`
`Furthermore, even after 2018, Defendants did not provide wage statements to all
`
`Plaintiffs, members of the FLSA Collective, and the Class Members.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`Ahmed Hegazy
`
`75.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendants employed Plaintiff Hegazy to work
`
`the night shift at a food cart located at the intersection of 53rd Street and 6th Avenue in Manhattan.
`
`76.
`
`Each night shift that Plaintiff Hegazy worked was scheduled from 7:00 pm until
`
`approximately 5:00 am on weekdays and until 5:30 am on weekends and holidays.
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiff Hegazy regularly arrived at work before 7:00 pm and was instructed to
`
`begin work early.
`
`78.
`
`Furthermore, Defendants regularly required Plaintiff Hegazy to drive their vehicle
`
`to their Queens warehouse after he completed work at the food cart.
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff Hegazy regularly did not finish work until an hour after he completed work
`
`at the food cart. Plaintiff Hegazy would finish work and leave Defendants’ Queens warehouse at
`
`6:00 or 6:30 am.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 13 of 31
`
`80.
`
`At the beginning of the liability period for this action, Defendants paid Plaintiff
`
`Hegazy $120.00 for each day worked, regardless of the number of hours that he worked.
`
`81.
`
`Even after Defendants began paying Plaintiff Hegazy hourly, they regularly did not
`
`include the time that he worked before 7:00 pm or after he completed his work at the food cart in
`
`the hours that they paid him.
`
`82.
`
`Defendants regularly scheduled Plaintiff Hegazy to work six or even seven days a
`
`week. During the period from in or around May 2015 until approximately January 2016,
`
`Defendants consistently scheduled Plaintiff Hegazy to work seven days each week.
`
`83.
`
`Thus Plaintiff Hegazy regularly worked sixty to seventy-five hours in a week and
`
`sometimes worked eighty or more hours in a workweek.
`
`84.
`
`Despite the many hours over forty that Plaintiff Hegazy worked each week,
`
`Defendants never paid him overtime at one half times his hourly rate before 2018. Even after they
`
`began paying Plaintiff Hegazy overtime, they did not pay him for all the overtime hours that he
`
`worked.
`
`85.
`
`Furthermore, although Plaintiff Hegazy always worked shifts that were longer than
`
`ten hours, Defendants never paid him spread of hours pay at the minimum hourly wage rate.
`
`Shrief Sror
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff Shrief Sror regularly worked the night shift at Defendants’ food cart
`
`located at 53rd Street and 7th Avenue in Manhattan. Plaintiff Sror also worked at Defendants’
`
`food cart located at 53rd Street and 6th Avenue in Manhattan for a few weeks and had worked for
`
`Defendants at their food cart located at LaGuardia Community College in Queens (for about one
`
`month).
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 14 of 31
`
`87.
`
`Defendants paid Plaintiff Sror a day rate in cash throughout his employment with
`
`them. Defendants never paid Plaintiff Sror an hourly rate.
`
`88.
`
`Defendants regularly required Plaintiff Sror to work six days a week and during
`
`some weeks they required him to work seven days.
`
`89.
`
`Although the night shift was scheduled to begin at 7:00 pm, Defendants told
`
`Plaintiff Sror that he had to arrive twenty to thirty minutes earlier to prepare, so Plaintiff Sror
`
`began work each day between 6:30 and 6:40 pm.
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiff Sror finished work between 4:00 and 4:30 am on weekdays and between
`
`5:00 and 5:30 am on weekends.
`
`91.
`
`Thus, Plaintiff Sror worked over sixty hours each week and sometimes worked over
`
`seventy hours in a workweek.
`
`92.
`
`Despite the many hours over forty that Plaintiff Sror worked each week, Defendants
`
`never paid him overtime at one half times his hourly rate.
`
`93.
`
`Furthermore, although Plaintiff Sror worked shifts that were more than ten hours
`
`each week, Defendants never paid him spread of hours pay at the minimum hourly wage rate.
`
`Ramiz Shehatta
`
`94.
`
`Plaintiff Ramiz Shehatta worked days at one of Defendants’ food carts located at
`
`LaGuardia Community College in Queens.
`
`95.
`
`Plaintiff Shehatta worked six days a week – Monday through Saturday. Sunday
`
`was his day off.
`
`96.
`
`Each day, Plaintiff Shehatta started work at 5:00 am. On weekdays, Plaintiff
`
`Shehatta ended work at 6:00 pm and, on Saturdays, Plaintiff Shehatta ended work at 1:00 pm.
`
`97.
`
`Thus, Plaintiff Shehatta worked over sixty hours each workweek.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 15 of 31
`
`98. When Plaintiff Shehatta began his employment with Defendants, they paid him
`
`cash at the rate of $130 per day. In or around 2016, Defendants continued to Pay Plaintiff Shehatta
`
`the same day rate, but split the payment and paid part in cash and part by check.
`
`99.
`
`On May 25, 2018, Defendants required Plaintiff Shehatta to sign a letter stating that
`
`they “no longer require[d his] services.”
`
`100. Despite receiving and signing the letter, Plaintiff Shehatta continued to work the
`
`same hours for Defendants for almost another two years until LaGuardia Community College
`
`closed because of Covid in March of 2020.
`
`101. However, after giving Plaintiff Shehatta the letter, Defendants resumed paying him
`
`in cash.
`
`102. With the possible exception of a few weeks in 2018, Defendants never paid Plaintiff
`
`Shehatta an overtime premium for the many hours over forty that he worked each workweek.
`
`103.
`
`Furthermore, although Plaintiff Shehatta worked five shifts that were more than ten
`
`hours each week, Defendants never paid him spread of hours pay at the minimum hourly wage
`
`rate.
`
`Walid Soltan
`
`104.
`
`Plaintiff Walid Soltan worked six days per week at one of Defendants’ food carts
`
`located at LaGuardia Community College in Queens and regularly worked a seventh shift at one
`
`of Defendants’ 53rd Street food carts in Manhattan.
`
`105.
`
`Plaintiff Soltan started work at 9:00 am each day Monday through Saturday. On
`
`weekdays he worked until 8:00 or 8:30 pm in the evening and on Saturday he would work at the
`
`LaGuardia Community College location until 6:00 pm.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 16 of 31
`
`106. Two or three times a month, after Plaintiff finished work at the LaGuardia
`
`Community College location on Saturday, he would travel to Manhattan and work the night shift
`
`from 7:00 pm on Saturday until 5:00 am on Sunday at one of Defendants’ food carts located on
`
`53rd Street.
`
`107. Thus, Plaintiff Soltan regularly worked for sixty-five to seventy-five hours per
`
`week or more.
`
`108. Defendants always paid Plaintiff Soltan a flat day rate no matter how many hours
`
`he worked.
`
`109. When Plaintiff Soltan began his employment with Defendants, they paid him
`
`$120.00 per day. By the time that his employment with Defendants ended on March 2, 2018, they
`
`paid him $135.00 per day.
`
`110. Despite the many hours over forty that Plaintiff Soltan worked each week,
`
`Defendants never paid him an overtime premium of one and half times his regular rate for those
`
`hours over forty that he worked in a workweek.
`
`111.
`
`Furthermore, although Plaintiff Soltan worked five or six shifts of more than ten
`
`hours, Defendants never paid him spread of hours pay at the minimum hourly wage rate.
`
`Ahmed Abouelkhair
`
`112. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Ahmed Abouelkhair
`
`worked at their food card located at 53rd Street and 6th Avenue.
`
`113.
`
`From in or around 2014 until the beginning of 2018, Plaintiff Abouelkhair worked
`
`the day shift six days per week. Defendants required Plaintiff Abouelkhair to start work at 9:00
`
`am to prepare the food before the food cart opened for business. Plaintiff Abouelkhair finished
`
`work around 7:00 pm each day.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 17 of 31
`
`114. Thus, Plaintiff Abouelkhair worked approximately sixty hours per week during this
`
`period of his employment. Despite the many hours over forty that Plaintiff Abouelkhair worked
`
`each week, Defendants never paid him overtime at the rate of one and one half times his regular
`
`rate.
`
`115.
`
`In 2018, Plaintiff Abouelkhair began to work part-time for Defendants. Plaintiff
`
`Abouelkhair would work two or three days per week from 9:00 am until 7:00 pm.
`
`116.
`
` During this period of Plaintiff Abouelkhair’s employment with Defendants, they
`
`paid him an hourly rate.
`
`117. Throughout Plaintiff Abouelkhair’s employment with Defendants, they never paid
`
`him spread of hours pay at the minimum hourly wage rate.
`
`Ahmed Moneim
`
`118.
`
`For approximately the first six months of Plaintiff Ahmed Moneim’s employment
`
`with Defendants, he was assigned to work at their food cart located on 53rd Street and 6th Avenue
`
`in Manhattan.
`
`119. While working at 53rd Street and 6th Avenue, Plaintiff Moneim began work at 9:00
`
`am and finished work at 7:00 pm six days per week – Monday through Saturday – with Sunday
`
`off. Thus, Plaintiff Moneim worked approximately sixty hours per week.
`
`120. After Plaintiff Moneim had worked for Defendants for approximately six months,
`
`Defendants assigned him to work at their LaGuardia Community College food cart Monday
`
`through Friday and at 53rd Street and 6th Avenue on Saturday.
`
`121.
`
`For approximately the next six months, Plaintiff Moneim worked from 9:00 am
`
`until approximately 8:00 pm at LaGuardia and from 9:00 am until 7:00 pm on Saturdays at 53rd
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 18 of 31
`
`Street, during this period. Thus Plaintiff Moneim worked approximately sixty-five hours per week
`
`during this period.
`
`122. During the first year of Plaintiff Moneim’s employment with Defendants, they paid
`
`him a flat day rate of $120 per day, without respect to the number of hours that he worked each
`
`day.
`
`123. Despite the many hours over forty that Plaintiff Moneim worked each week,
`
`Defendants never paid him overtime at the rate of one and one half times his regular rate for the
`
`hours over forty that he worked in a workweek.
`
`124.
`
`In 2016, Defendants transferred Plaintiff Moneim to their store on 14th Street and
`
`2nd Avenue. During this period, Plaintiff Moneim also worked at Defendants’ location at 95th
`
`Street and Amsterdam Avenue at times.
`
`125. After Defendants transferred Plaintiff Moneim to 14th Street and 2nd Avenue, they
`
`expanded his responsibilities and designated him as a trainer, along with five to nine other
`
`employees, to provide hands on training to new franchise owners and their employees.
`
`126. Defendants assigned Plaintiff Moneim to work from 8:30 or 9:00 am until 8:00 or
`
`9:00 pm six days a week after he was designated as a trainer.
`
`127. When franchises opened in other states or countries such as Texas, California,
`
`Illinos, and London, Defendants assigned Plaintiff Moneim to travel to the opening.
`
`128.
`
`Plaintiff was required to work long hours to prepare for these openings—from 7:00
`
`am until 1:00 am—seven days a week.
`
`129. Although Plaintiff Moneim did not work in an office and he had no employees
`
`reporting to him or power to make decisions of importance to the business, Defendants
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01880 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 19 of 31
`
`misclassified Plaintiff Moneim as a salaried, overtime exempt, employee after they designated him
`
`as a trainer.
`
`130. After Defendants misclassified of Plaintiff Moneim’s as exempt, his primary duties
`
`continued to be physically preparing and serving food.
`
`131. While he was classified as an exempt trainer, Defendants paid Plaintiff Moneim
`
`every other week on a salary basis.
`
`132. Despite the long hours that Plaintiff Moneim worked, Defendants never paid him
`
`overtime at one and one half times his regular hourly rate for the many hours over forty that he
`
`worked in a workweek.
`
`133.
`
`Furthermore, although Plaintiff Moneim regularly worked shifts of more than ten
`
`hours, Defendants never paid him spread of hours pay at the minimum hourly wage rate.
`
`STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
`
`134. On April 19, 2018, two Food Server/Food Vendor employees of Defendants,
`
`Ahmed Elshamy and Emad Ali, filed a class action complaint in the Southern District of New York
`
`against Defendants alleging violations of the FLSA and the NYLL, including failure to pay
`
`overtime, failure to pay spread of hours pay and cost of uniforms, illegal deductions from the
`
`gratuities that customers intended as tips for employees, and failure to provide notices and wage
`
`statements as required by the NYLL section 195(1) and (3). Elshamy et al. v. The Halal Guys,
`
`Inc., No. 18-cv-03468 (AT)(GWG).
`
`135. The Parties agreed to settle the case for the original two plaintiffs and four opt-in
`
`plaintiffs and the action was discontinued 299 days later on February 12,

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket