`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------X
`LESLIE LAZAAR,
`
`
`
`:
`individually and on behalf of
`
`:
`all others similarly situated, as a Collective :
`and Class representative,
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`:
`THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC.,
`:
`:
`:
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`This is a collective and class action brought by individual and representative
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Leslie Lazaar (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (the
`
`“putative FLSA Collective”), and on behalf of the members of the putative New York Rule 23
`
`Class, to recover overtime pay from her employer, The Anthem Companies, Inc. (“Anthem” or
`
`“Defendant”).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals
`
`for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”).
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s claim is asserted as a state-wide collective action under the FLSA, 29
`
`U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff also brings claims to recover unpaid wages under New York Labor Law,
`
`Article 19 §§ 650, et seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations
`
`(together, “NYLL”). Plaintiff brings these state law claims as a putative class action pursuant to
`
`Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 14
`
`5.
`
`The putative “FLSA Collective” is made up of all persons who are or have been
`
`employed by Defendant in New York as Utilization Review Nurses, Medical Management Nurses,
`
`Utilization Management Nurses, or other similar positions who were paid a salary and treated as
`
`exempt from overtime laws, and whose primary job was to perform medical necessity reviews
`
`during the applicable statutory period.
`
`6.
`
`The putative “New York Rule 23 Class” is made up of all persons who are or have
`
`been employed by Defendant in the state of New York as Utilization Review Nurses, Medical
`
`Management Nurses, Utilization Management Nurses, or other similar positions who were paid a
`
`salary and treated as exempt from overtime laws, and whose primary job was to perform medical
`
`necessity reviews during the applicable statutory period.
`
`7.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s willful and illegal pay practices, Plaintiff and those
`
`similarly situated were deprived of overtime compensation for their hours worked in violation of
`
`federal and New York state law.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear this
`
`8.
`
`Complaint and to adjudicate these claims because this action is brought under the FLSA.
`
`9.
`
`This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over
`
`the state law claims asserted, as the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of
`
`operative fact.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
`
`York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Plaintiff worked for Defendant in this district and a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 3 of 14
`
`PARTIES
`
`Defendant The Anthem Companies, Inc. (“Anthem” or “Defendant”) is a foreign
`
`11.
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 220 Virginia Ave.,
`
`Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204, United States.
`
`12.
`
`Anthem operates office locations in multiple states around the country, including
`
`an office located in Manhattan, New York.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff’s paystubs list Anthem and its principal place of business address as her
`
`employer.
`
`14.
`
`Upon information and belief, other similarly situated individuals’ paystubs list
`
`Anthem and its principal place of business address as their employer.
`
`15.
`
`Anthem is a multi-line health insurance company that provides managed care
`
`programs and related services.
`
`16.
`
`According to its website, Anthem provides healthcare benefits to more than 74
`
`million members nationwide and serves one in eight Americans through their affiliated medical
`
`care coverage plans.
`
`17.
`
`Anthem operates in interstate commerce by, among other things, offering and
`
`selling a wide array of products and services, including but not limited to, preferred provider
`
`organization, consumer-driven health plans,
`
`traditional
`
`indemnity, health maintenance
`
`organization, point-of-service, ACA public exchange and off-exchange products, administrative
`
`services, Bluecard, Medicare plans, individual plans, Medicaid plans and other state-sponsored
`
`programs, pharmacy products, life insurance, disability products, radiology benefit management,
`
`personal health care guidance, dental, vision services and products, and Medicare administrative
`
`operations to customers and consumers in multiple states across the country, including New York.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 4 of 14
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, Anthem’s gross annual sales made, or business done
`
`has been in excess of $500,000.00 at all relevant times.
`
`19.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant is, and has been, an “employer” engaged in
`
`interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce, within the meaning of the
`
`FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff Leslie Lazaar is an adult resident of Hudson County, New Jersey.
`
`Defendant employed Plaintiff as a Utilization Review Nurse from approximately
`
`April 2012 to January 2017. Plaintiff’s claims were tolled when she opted-in to Laura Canaday,
`
`et al. v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., case number 1:19-cv-01084-STA-jay on November 4, 2019.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff reported to Defendant’s Manhattan, New York office from approximately
`
`April 2012 to 2013, after which point, Plaintiff worked from her home in the Bronx, New York
`
`City, New York.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
`
`At all times relevant herein, Anthem operated a willful scheme to deprive Plaintiff
`
`23.
`
`and others similarly situated of overtime compensation.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals work or worked as Utilization
`
`Review Nurses, Medical Management Nurses, Utilization Management Nurses, or in similar job
`
`titles, and were primarily responsible for performing medical necessity reviews for Defendant.
`
`25.
`
`In conducting medical necessity reviews, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
`
`individuals’ primary job duty is non-exempt work consisting of reviewing medical authorization
`
`requests submitted by healthcare providers against pre-determined guidelines and criteria for
`
`insurance coverage and payment purposes.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 5 of 14
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals are or were paid a salary with no
`
`overtime pay.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals are or were treated as exempt
`
`from overtime laws, including the FLSA and NYLL.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
`
`individuals to work more than forty (40) hours per week without overtime pay.
`
`29.
`
`For example, between November 6, 2016 to November 12, 2016, Plaintiff estimates
`
`that she worked approximately 60 hours and did not receive overtime pay for her overtime hours.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant has been aware, or should have been aware, that Plaintiff, members of
`
`the putative FLSA Collective, members of the putative New York Rule 23 Class performed non-
`
`exempt work that required payment of overtime compensation. Defendant also required Plaintiff,
`
`members of the putative FLSA Collective, members of the putative New York Rule 23 Class to
`
`work long hours, including overtime hours, to complete all of their job responsibilities and meet
`
`Defendant’s productivity standards.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant knew that Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals worked
`
`unpaid overtime hours because Plaintiff and others complained to Defendant about their long hours
`
`and the workload.
`
`32.
`
`Although Defendant had a legal obligation to do so, Defendant did not make, keep,
`
`or preserve adequate or accurate records of the hours worked by Plaintiff and the other similarly
`
`situated individuals.
`
`FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 6 of 14
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff brings Count I individually and on behalf of the putative FLSA Collective.
`
`Plaintiff files this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
`
`individuals. The putative FLSA Collective is defined as follows:
`
`All persons who worked as Utilization Review Nurses, Medical Management
`Nurses, Utilization Management Nurses, or in similar job titles who were paid a
`salary and treated as exempt from overtime laws, and were primarily responsible
`for performing medical necessity reviews for Defendant in New York at any time
`since three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through judgment.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff has consented in writing to be a part of this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`216(b). Plaintiff’s signed consent form is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In addition, to date, one
`
`(1) other individual has consented in writing to be a part of this action. Their consent form is
`
`attached as Exhibit B.
`
`37.
`
`As this case proceeds, it is likely that other individuals will file consent forms and
`
`join as “opt-in” plaintiffs.
`
`38.
`
`During the applicable statutory period, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
`
`individuals routinely worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek without receiving
`
`overtime compensation for their overtime hours worked.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant willfully engaged in a pattern of violating the FLSA, as described in this
`
`Complaint in ways including, but not limited to, requiring Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
`
`individuals to work excessive hours and failing to pay them overtime compensation despite their
`
`complaints to Defendant about the overtime.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant is liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and
`
`the entire putative FLSA Collective. Accordingly, notice should be sent to the putative FLSA
`
`Collective. There are numerous similarly-situated current and former employees of Defendant
`
`who have suffered from Defendant’s practice of denying overtime pay, and who would benefit
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 7 of 14
`
`from the issuance of court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join. Those
`
`similarly-situated employees are known to Defendant, and are readily identifiable through its
`
`records.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff and the individual with a consent form attached at Exhibit B were
`
`previously opt-in Plaintiffs in the FLSA collective action in the U.S. District Court for the Western
`
`District of Tennessee titled Laura Canaday, et al. v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., case number
`
`1:19-cv-01084-STA-jay. The Canaday court limited the scope of the conditionally certified
`
`collective to individuals who worked for Defendant within the state of Tennessee.
`
`NEW YORK RULE 23 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`43.
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b), Plaintiff brings Counts II and III
`
`individually and on behalf of the putative New York Rule 23 Class.
`
`44.
`
`The class of similarly situated employees sought to be certified under Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 23(a) and 23(b) as a class action under the NYLL and Wage Theft Prevention Act is defined as:
`
`All persons who worked as Utilization Review Nurses, Medical Management
`Nurses, Utilization Management Nurses, or in similar job titles who were paid a
`salary and treated as exempt from overtime laws, and were primarily responsible
`for performing medical necessity reviews for Defendant in New York at any time
`since six years prior to the filing of this Complaint through judgment.
`
`45.
`
`The persons in the putative New York Rule 23 Class are so numerous that joinder
`
`of all members is impracticable. While the precise number has not been determined, Defendant,
`
`on information and belief, has employed at least forty (40) individuals as Utilization Review
`
`Nurses, Medical Management Nurses, and Utilization Management Nurses, or similar job titles
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 8 of 14
`
`during the applicable statute of limitations period. Plaintiff and the putative New York Rule 23
`
`Class have been equally affected by Defendant’s violations of law.
`
`46.
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to the putative New York Rule 23
`
`Class that predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members, including but not
`
`limited to the following:
`
`a. Whether Defendant violated New York law by failing to pay overtime wages;
`
`b. Whether Defendant violated New York law by failing to furnish all required
`
`pay information;
`
`c. The proper measure and calculation of damages; and
`
`d. Whether Defendant’s actions were willful or in good faith.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those members of the putative New York Rule 23
`
`Class. Plaintiff, like other members of the putative New York Rule 23 Class, was subject to
`
`Defendant’s practices and policies described in this Complaint. Further, Plaintiff’s job duties are
`
`typical of the putative New York Rule 23 Class, as all class members are or were Utilization
`
`Review Nurses, Medical Management Nurses, Utilization Management Nurses, or similar job
`
`titles who were primarily responsible for performing medical necessity reviews.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative New York
`
`Rule 23 Class and has retained counsel experienced in complex wage and hour class and collective
`
`action litigation.
`
`49.
`
`The action is properly maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)
`
`because questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting individual class
`
`members, and a class action is superior to other methods in order to ensure a fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this controversy, because, in the context of wage and hour litigation, individual
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 9 of 14
`
`plaintiffs lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute separate lawsuits in federal court
`
`against large corporate defendants. Class litigation is also superior because it will preclude the
`
`need for unduly duplicative litigation resulting in inconsistent judgments pertaining to Defendant’s
`
`policies and practices. There do not appear to be any difficulties in managing this class action.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the putative New York Rule 23
`
`Class to the extent required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
`FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective)
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set
`
`51.
`
`forth herein.
`
`52.
`
`The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, requires employers to pay non-exempt employees
`
`one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) hours per
`
`workweek.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
`
`individuals to routinely work more than forty (40) hours in a workweek without overtime
`
`compensation.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant’s actions, policies, and practices described above violate the FLSA’s
`
`overtime requirement by regularly and repeatedly failing to compensate Plaintiff and the other
`
`similarly situated individuals their required overtime compensation.
`
`55.
`
`As the direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and
`
`the other similarly situated individuals have suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of income
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 10 of 14
`
`and other damages. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals are entitled to liquidated
`
`damages and attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with this claim.
`
`56.
`
`By failing to accurately record, report, and/or preserve records of hours worked
`
`by Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals, Defendant has failed to make, keep, and
`
`preserve records with respect to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages, hours,
`
`and other conditions and practice of employment, in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et
`
`seq.
`
`57.
`
`The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA
`
`within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for the
`
`fact that its compensation practices were in violation of these laws.
`
`COUNT II – VIOLATION OF NEW YORK LABOR LAW
`FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Putative New York Rule 23 Class)
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set
`
`58.
`
`forth herein.
`
`59.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the members of the putative New York Rule 23
`
`Class were employees within the meaning of NYLL § 651(5).
`
`60.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant was an employer within the meaning of NYLL §
`
`651(6).
`
`61.
`
`New York law requires Defendant to pay overtime compensation at a rate of not
`
`less than one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess
`
`of forty hours in a workweek. 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-2.2.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 11 of 14
`
`62.
`
`Defendant, pursuant to its policies and practices, refused and failed to pay Plaintiff
`
`and the members of the putative New York Rule 23 Class overtime wages for hours worked over
`
`40 per workweek.
`
`63.
`
`New York’s overtime regulations substantially incorporate and adopt the FLSA’s
`
`overtime regulations.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff and the members of the putative New York Rule 23 Class worked more
`
`than 40 hours for Defendant in one or more workweeks within the past six years, but due to
`
`Defendant’s failure to pay them for all hours worked, they did not receive overtime pay for all
`
`hours worked in violation of 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-2.2.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant’s actions were willful, and Defendant did not have a good faith basis to
`
`believe that its underpayment was in compliance with the law. See NYLL § 663(1).
`
`66.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the
`
`members of the putative New York Rule 23 Class have suffered damages in an amount to be
`
`determined at trial.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff and the members of the putative New York Rule 23 Class seek damages
`
`in the amount of their unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action, and such other legal and equitable relief as the
`
`Court deems proper.
`
`COUNT III – VIOLATION OF NEW YORK LABOR LAW
`FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW YORK WAGE THEFT PREVENTION ACT
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Putative New York Rule 23 Class)
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set
`
`68.
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 12 of 14
`
`69.
`
`Defendant failed to furnish Plaintiff and the members of the putative New York
`
`Rule 23 Class, at the time of hiring, a notice containing the required information include 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 designed by 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; the telephone number of the employer; and anything otherwise
`
`required by law in violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL § 195(1).
`
`70.
`
`Due to the Defendant’s violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL §
`
`195(1), Plaintiff and the members of the putative New York Rule 23 Class should be awarded
`
`statutory damages of $50.00 for each work day that the violation occurred, up to a maximum of
`
`$5,000.00, pursuant to NYLL § 198(1-b).
`
`71.
`
`Defendant failed to furnish Plaintiff and the members of the putative New York
`
`Rule 23 Class a compliant statement with each wage payment listing, among other things, the rate
`
`or rates of pay and basis thereof, 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, in violation
`
`of the Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL § 195(3).
`
`72.
`
`Due to the Defendant’s violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL §
`
`195(3), Plaintiff and the members of the putative New York Rule 23 Class should be awarded
`
`statutory damages of $250.00 for each work day that the violation occurred, up to a maximum of
`
`$5,000.00, pursuant to NYLL § 198(1-d).
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 13 of 14
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the putative FLSA Collective, prays for
`
`judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Designation of this action as a collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and
`those similarly situated, and prompt issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
`§ 216(b) to all those similarly-situated apprising them of the pendency of
`this action, and permitting them to assert timely FLSA claims in this action
`by filing individual consent forms;
`
`A finding that Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective are non-exempt
`employees entitled to protection under the FLSA;
`
`A finding that Defendant violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA;
`
`Judgment against Defendant in the amount of Plaintiff’s and the putative
`FLSA Collective’s unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rates;
`
`An award of all damages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest and
`post-judgment interest;
`
`An award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action;
`
`Leave to add additional plaintiffs and/or state law claims by motion, the
`filing of written consent forms, or any other method approved by the
`Court; and
`
`For such other and further relief, in the law or equity, as this Court may
`deem appropriate and just.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the putative New York Rule 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Class, prays for relief as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Certification of this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf
`of the putative New York Rule 23 Class, and the appointment of Plaintiff as the
`class representative and her counsel as class counsel;
`
`Judgment against Defendant for violation of the overtime provisions of the NYLL
`and the recordkeeping provisions of the Wage Theft Prevention Act;
`
`Judgment that Defendant’s violations were willful;
`
`An award of damages, liquidated damages, appropriate statutory penalties, pre-
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03075 Document 1 Filed 04/13/22 Page 14 of 14
`
`judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid by
`Defendant pursuant to New York law; and
`
`E.
`
`Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: April 13, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
`
`/s/Michele R. Fisher
`
`
`Michele R. Fisher, NY Bar 4505822
`Rachhana T. Srey, MN Bar No. 340133*
`4700 IDS Center
`80 South Eighth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 256-3200
`Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
`srey@nka.com
`fisher@nka.com
`
`* Pro hac vice forthcoming
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, the Putative FLSA
`Collective, and the Putative New York Rule 23
`Class
`
`14
`
`