throbber
Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 26
`
`LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
`C.K. Lee (CL 4086)
`Anne Seelig (AS 3976)
`148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
`New York, NY 10011
`Tel.: 212-465-1180
`Fax: 212-465-1181
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective
`Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`DANILO MERA, on behalf of himself, FLSA
`Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`
`KYMA HUDSON LLC,
`d/b/a KYMA,
`KYMA NYC LLC,
`d/b/a KYMA,
`OLD NORTHERN BOULEVARD
`RESTAURANT LLC,
`d/b/a KYMA,
`217 W85 LLC,
`d/b/a ELEA,
`MERKOURIOS ANGELIADES,
`and STEVE TENEDIOS,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, DANILO MERA (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
`
`by and through his undersigned attorney, files this Class and Collective Action Complaint against
`
`KYMA HUDSON LLC, d/b/a KYMA, KYMA NYC LLC, d/b/a KYMA, OLD NORTHERN
`
`BOULEVARD RESTAURANT LLC, d/b/a KYMA, 217 W85 LLC, d/b/a ELEA, (collectively
`
`the "Corporate Defendants"), MERKOURIOS ANGELIADES and STEVE TENEDIOS
`
`(“Individual Defendants,” and together with Corporate Defendants, “Defendants”), and states as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 26
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
`
`§§201 et. seq. (“FLSA”), that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from
`
`Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime, (2) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to
`
`timeshaving, (3) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to invalid tip credit, (4) improperly
`
`deducted meal credits, (5) illegally retaining gratuities, (6) liquidated damages, and (7) attorneys’
`
`fees and costs.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), he
`
`and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including
`
`overtime, (2) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to timeshaving, (3) unpaid wages, including
`
`overtime, due to invalid tip credit, (4) improperly deducted meal credits, (5) illegally retaining
`
`gratuities, (6) statutory penalties, (7) liquidated damages, and (8) attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`3.
`
`Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to the New York State Human Rights
`
`Law, New York Executive Law §296 (“NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law,
`
`Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107 (“NYCHRL”), that Plaintiff was deprived
`
`of his statutory rights as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory employment practices based on
`
`Plaintiff’s sexual orientation and seeks to recover (1) economic damages, (2) compensatory
`
`damages, (3) punitive damages, and (4) attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), 28
`
`U.S.C. §§1331, 1337, and 1343 and has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in the Southern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 3 of 26
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff MERA is a resident of Essex County, New Jersey.
`
`Defendants collectively own and operate four (4) Greek taverna inspired restaurants
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`in New York located at:
`
`a) Kyma Flatiron: 15 W 18th Street, New York, NY 10011;
`
`b) Kyma Hudson Yards: 445 W, 35th Street, New York, NY 10001;
`
`c) Kyma Roslyn: 1446 Old Northern Blvd, Roslyn, NY 11576; and
`
`d) Elea: 217 W 85th St, New York, NY 10024 (collectively, the “Restaurants”)
`
`8.
`
`Defendants operate the Restaurants as a single integrated enterprise under the
`
`common control of Defendants. All the Restaurants are engaged in related activities, share
`
`common ownership, and have a common business purpose.
`
`a) Specifically, Individual Defendant MERKOURIOS ANGELIADES owns and
`
`operates all the Restaurants as it is asserted on Defendants registrations, licenses,
`
`public reports, and news articles. See Exhibit A.
`
`b) Similarly, all the Restaurants are held out to the public as “sibling” or “sister”
`
`entities. See Exhibit B.
`
`c) The Restaurants all serve Greek and Mediterranean cuisines, have similar menus,
`
`serve similar goods, and have the same suppliers. Exhibit C.
`
`d) Likewise, all the Restaurants share and utilize similar décor and ambience inspired
`
`by traditional Greek taverna restaurants. See Exhibit D.
`
`e) All the Restaurants have a centralized Human Resources that deals with hiring,
`
`firing, and administering all the Restaurants’ work force.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 4 of 26
`
`f) Moreover, Defendants’ employees are exchanged, rotated, and required to work at
`
`each Restaurant location on an as needed basis.
`
`9.
`
`Corporate Defendant KYMA HUDSON LLC., d/b/a KYMA is a domestic business
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of business
`
`located at 445 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001, and an address for service of process
`
`located at 315 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10017.
`
`10.
`
`Corporate Defendant KYMA NYC LLC., d/b/a KYMA is a domestic business
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of business
`
`and an address for service of process located at 15 West 18th Street, New York, NY 10011.
`
`11.
`
`Corporate Defendant OLD NORTHERN BOULEVARD RESTAURANT LLC.,
`
`d/b/a KYMA is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
`
`York, with a principal place of business and an address for service of process located at 1446 Old
`
`Northern Blvd, Roslyn, NY 11576.
`
`12.
`
`Corporate Defendant 217 W85 LLC, d/b/a ELEA is a domestic business
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of business
`
`located at 217 West 85th St, New York, NY 10024 and an address for service of process located
`
`at 5-44 47th Ave, Third Floor, Long Island City, NY 11101.
`
`13.
`
`Individual Defendant MERKOURIOS ANGELIADES is the owner and principal
`
`of Corporate Defendant. MERKOURIOS ANGELIADES exercises operational as it relates to all
`
`employees
`
`including Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
`
`the Class. Defendant
`
`MERKOURIOS ANGELIADES exercises the power to (and also delegates to managers and
`
`supervisors the power to) fire and hire employees, supervise and control employee work schedules
`
`and conditions of employment, and determine the rate and method of compensation of employees
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 5 of 26
`
`including those of Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class. At all times, employees
`
`could complain to Defendant MERKOURIOS ANGELIADES directly regarding the terms of
`
`employment.
`
`14.
`
`Individual Defendant STEVE TENEDIOS is the owner and principal of Corporate
`
`Defendant. STEVE TENEDIOS exercises operational as it relates to all employees including
`
`Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class. Defendant STEVE TENEDIOS exercises the
`
`power to (and also delegates to managers and supervisors the power to) fire and hire employees,
`
`supervise and control employee work schedules and conditions of employment, and determine the
`
`rate and method of compensation of employees including those of Plaintiff, FLSA Collective
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class. At all times, employees could complain to Defendant STEVE TENEDIOS
`
`directly regarding the terms of employment.
`
`15.
`
`At all relevant times, Corporate Defendants were and continue to be an “enterprise
`
`engaged in commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA, NYLL, and regulations thereunder.
`
`FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA §16(b), 29
`
`U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees (including, but not
`
`limited to, cooks, food preparers, dishwashers, porters, hostesses, bussers, food runners,
`
`bartenders, barbacks, and waiters) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six (6) years
`
`before the filing of the Complaint (“FLSA Collective Plaintiffs”).
`
`17.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have been
`
`similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and have
`
`been and continue to be subjected to Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
`
`procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all of which have culminated in a willful failure and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 6 of 26
`
`refusal to pay Plaintiff MERA and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs (i) their proper wages, including
`
`overtime, (ii) their proper wages, including overtime, due to timeshaving and (iii) their proper
`
`wages due to improperly deducted meal credit. The claims of Plaintiff stated herein are essentially
`
`the same as those of other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. A subclass of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
`
`has a claim for (i) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an invalid tip credit and (ii) illegally
`
`retained gratuities. The claims of Plaintiff MERA stated herein are essentially the same as those
`
`of the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.
`
`18.
`
`The claims for relief are properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in
`
`collective action pursuant to §16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
`
`are readily ascertainable. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this action, their
`
`names and addresses are readily available from the Defendants. Notice can be provided to FLSA
`
`Collective Plaintiffs via first class mail to the last address known to Defendants.
`
`RULE 23 CLASS ALLEGATIONS – NEW YORK
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`(“F.R.C.P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees (including, but
`
`not limited to, cooks, food preparers, dishwashers, porters, hostesses, bussers, food runners,
`
`bartenders, barbacks, and waiters) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six (6) years
`
`before the filing of the Complaint in this case as defined herein (the “Class Members").
`
`20.
`
`The Class members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the Class
`
`members are determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and worked, the
`
`position held, and rates of pay for each Class member are also determinable from Defendants’
`
`records. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this action, their names and addresses
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 7 of 26
`
`are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided by means permissible under
`
`F.R.C.P. 23.
`
`21.
`
`The proposed Class is so numerous that a joinder of all members is impracticable,
`
`and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court. Although the
`
`precise number of such persons is unknown, the facts on which the calculation of that number are
`
`presently within the sole control of Defendants, there is no doubt that there are more than forty
`
`(40) members of the Class. The Class further includes a subclass of tipped employees (“Tipped
`
`Subclass”) who also number more than forty (40). Plaintiff MERA is a member of the Class and
`
`the Tipped Subclass
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those claims which could be alleged by any member
`
`of the Class, and the relief sought is typical of the relief which would be sought by each member
`
`of the Class in separate actions. All the Class members were subject to the same corporate practices
`
`of Defendants, as alleged herein, of (i) failing to pay proper wages, including overtime, (ii) failing
`
`to pay proper wages, including overtime, due to timeshaving, (iii) failing to pay proper wages due
`
`to improperly deducted meal credits, (iv) failing to provide Class Members with proper wage
`
`statements, and (v) failing to provide Class members with notice of wage rate upon hiring and as
`
`required thereafter pursuant to the New York Labor Law.
`
`23. With regard to the Tipped Subclass, Defendants also failed to pay the proper
`
`minimum wage because Defendants were not entitled to claim any tip credit as they failed to meet
`
`the statutory requirements under the NYLL. Plaintiff MERA and the other members of the Tipped
`
`Subclass suffered from Defendants’ utilization of an invalid tip credit because Defendants: (i)
`
`failed to properly provide written tip credit notice at hiring; (ii) claimed tip credit for all hours
`
`worked despite having caused tipped employees to engage in non-tipped duties for hours
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 8 of 26
`
`exceeding twenty percent (20%) of the total hours worked during a given shift each workweek;
`
`(iii) implemented an invalid tip pooling scheme whereby managers and non-tipped employees
`
`participated; (iv) illegally retained tips; (v) failed to accurately keep track of daily tips earned and
`
`maintain records thereof; and (vi) failed to provide proper wage statements clearly indicating tip
`
`credit allowance for each payment period.
`
`24.
`
`Defendants’ corporate-wide policies and practices affected all Class members
`
`similarly, and Defendants benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts as to each
`
`Class member. Plaintiff and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries, and damages
`
`arising from the same unlawful policies, practices, and procedures by Defendants.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has no
`
`interests antagonistic to the Class. Plaintiff is represented by attorneys who are experienced and
`
`competent in both class action litigation and employment litigation, and who have previously
`
`represented Plaintiffs in wage and hour cases.
`
`26.
`
`A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of the controversy – particularly in the context of the wage and hour litigation where
`
`individual class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit against
`
`corporate defendants. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated
`
`persons to prosecute common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the
`
`unnecessary duplication of efforts and expense that numerous individual actions engender.
`
`Because of losses, injuries, and damages suffered by each individual Class members are small, in
`
`the sense pertinent to a class action analysis, the expenses and burden of individual litigation would
`
`make it extremely difficult or impossible for the individual Class members to redress their wrongs.
`
`Important public interests will be served by addressing the matter as a class action. The
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 9 of 26
`
`adjudication of individual litigation claims would result in a great expenditure of Court and public
`
`resources; however, treating the claims as a class action would result in a significant saving of
`
`these costs. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create
`
`a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications with respect to individual Class members,
`
`establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant, resulting in the impairment of Class
`
`members’ rights and the disposition of their interests through actions to which they were not
`
`parties. The issues in this action can be decided by means of common, class-wide proof. In
`
`addition, if appropriate, the Court can, and is empowered to, fashion methods to efficiently manage
`
`this action as a class action.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants and other employers throughout the state violate the NYLL. Current
`
`employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former
`
`employees are fearful of bringing claims because doing so can harm their current employment,
`
`future employment, and future efforts to secure employment. Class actions provide class members
`
`who are not named in the Complaint a degree of anonymity, which allows for the vindication of
`
`their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.
`
`28.
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over
`
`any questions affecting only individual class members, including:
`
`a. Whether Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Class within the meaning of New
`
`York law;
`
`b. What are and were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols and
`
`plans of Defendants regarding the types of work and labor for which Defendants
`
`did not properly pay Plaintiff and the Class member properly;
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 10 of 26
`
`c. At what common rate, or rates subject to common methods of calculation, were and
`
`are Defendants required to pay to Plaintiff and the Class members for their work;
`
`d. Whether Defendants properly notified Plaintiff and the Class of their hourly rates;
`
`e. Whether Defendants operated their business with a policy of failing to pay Plaintiff,
`
`FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class members for all hours worked;
`
`f. Whether Defendants properly provided written notice to all tipped employees, in
`
`their native language, that Defendants were taking a tip credit;
`
`g. Whether Defendants accurately tracked the amounts of tips earned each day and
`
`maintained records thereof;
`
`h. Whether Defendants instituted an improper tip pool whereby managers and non-
`
`tipped employees participated;
`
`i. Whether Defendants caused tipped employees to engage in non-tipped duties
`
`exceeding 20% or two hours of their work shift;
`
`j. Whether Defendants properly satisfied New York State’s nutritional requirements
`
`containing all four (4) food groups for meals provided to employees;
`
`k. Whether the meals provided by Defendants exceed the meals “reasonable cost”;
`
`l. Whether employees actually consumed the credited meals provided by Defendants;
`
`m. Whether Defendants provided proper wage statements informing: (i) tipped
`
`employees of the amount of tip credit allowance for each payment period; and (ii)
`
`all non-exempt employees of information required to be provided on wage
`
`statements as required under the NYLL and applicable state laws;
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 11 of 26
`
`n. Whether Defendants provided proper wage and hour notice, at date of hiring and
`
`annually, to all non-exempt employees, in their native language, per requirements
`
`of the NYLL.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Wage and Hour Allegations
`
`29.
`
`In or around July 2021, Plaintiff DANILO MERA was hired to work as a Busboy
`
`for Defendants’ “Kyma Hudson Yards” restaurant located at 445 West 35th Street, New York, NY
`
`10001. Around January 2022, Plaintiff’s position was changed to Runner, and he continued
`
`working for Defendants until March 18, 2022.
`
`30.
`
`At the beginning of his employment, Defendants trained Plaintiff at their “Kyma
`
`Flatiron” restaurant located at 15 W 18th Street, New York, NY 10011. It was and is a common
`
`practice that Defendants train new employees at one location and then transfer and direct FLSA
`
`Collective Plaintiffs and Class members to perform work at other Restaurants on an as needed
`
`basis.
`
`31.
`
`Throughout his employment, Defendants compensated Plaintiff at the tipped credit
`
`minimum wage rate of $10 per hour.
`
`32.
`
`Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was scheduled to work five (5) days per week
`
`from 3:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. for a total of forty-five (45) hours per week. On occasion, Plaintiff
`
`was required to continue working after his scheduled shift ended. Likewise, FLSA Collective
`
`Plaintiffs and Class members worked similar hours.
`
`33.
`
`Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was not compensated for his meal breaks as
`
`he was required to work through them due to how busy the restaurant was. Similarly, FLSA
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 12 of 26
`
`Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were similarly required to work through their meal breaks
`
`and not compensated for that time.
`
`34.
`
`Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants improperly deducted a meal credit
`
`from Plaintiff’s wages under FLSA § 203(m) and NYCRR § 146-1.9, without regard to whether
`
`the meal credit deducted exceed the meals “reasonable cost”1, whether the meals provided satisfied
`
`New York State’s nutritional requirements containing all four (4) food groups2, and whether
`
`employees actually consumed the credited meals or not. Defendants’ provided meals consisted
`
`only of chicken and pasta, with no drinks such as coffee, tea, or sodas, and failed to satisfy the
`
`New York State’s nutritional requirements. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members
`
`similarly had meal credits improperly deducted from their wages.
`
`35.
`
`Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was subject to an invalid tip pool wherein
`
`managers and non-tipped employees such as hosts participated. The subclass of FLSA Collective
`
`Plaintiffs and the Tipped Subclass similarly suffered from Defendants utilization of an invalid tip
`
`pool wherein managers and non-tipped employees such as hosts participated
`
`36.
`
`Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and employees with their proper wages,
`
`including overtime, due to Defendants incorrect method of calculating employees’ hours worked.
`
`Whenever Plaintiff worked longer than ten (10) hours, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff
`
`the equivalent of one worked hour, as Defendants improperly paid employees the spread of hours
`
`premium instead of the worked hour plus an additional hour at the minimum wage. As it can be
`
`seen on the paystubs attached hereto as Exhibit E, when Plaintiff worked a shift longer than ten
`
`(10) hours, Defendants compensated Plaintiff with the Spread of Hours premium as a replacement
`
`
`
`1 29 C.F.R. § 531.3
`2 NYCRR § 146-3.7
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 13 of 26
`
`for a worked hour, instead of a premium in addition to Plaintiff’s worked hours, as it is supposed
`
`to be. For example, the paystub corresponding to the week of 02/14/2022 – 02/20/2022 shows that
`
`Plaintiff worked that week a total of 51.02 hours with one shift that exceeded ten (10) hours in
`
`duration. Thus, for that week, Plaintiff was supposed to be compensated for 51.02 hours (40 at a
`
`regular wage, 11.02 overtime) plus one instance of spread of hours premium. Instead, Defendants
`
`compensated Plaintiff for 50.02 hours and the spread of hours premium, resulting in an unpaid
`
`overtime hour. Similarly, Class members were not compensated for all their worked hours.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff, the subclass of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Tipped Subclass were
`
`paid below the minimum wage at an invalid "tip credit" minimum wage. With respect to Plaintiff,
`
`the subclass of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Tipped Subclass, Defendants were not entitled
`
`to claim any tip credit allowance under the FLSA and NYLL because Defendants: (i) failed to
`
`properly provide tip credit notice at hiring and annually thereafter; (ii) claimed tip credit for all
`
`hours worked despite having caused tipped employees to engage in non-tipped duties in excess of
`
`two hours or 20% of the total hours worked each shift; (iii) implemented an invalid tip pooling
`
`scheme in which managers and non-tipped employees participated in the tip pool; (iv) failed to
`
`provide proper wage statements clearly indicating tip credit allowance for each payment period;
`
`and (v) failed to accurately keep track of daily tips earned and maintain records thereof.
`
`38.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff, the subclass of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Tipped
`
`Subclass were required to engage more than two hours or 20% of his working time performing
`
`non-tipped related activities such as repairing furniture, cleaning and mopping floors, sweeping
`
`the sidewalks, polishing the furniture, organizing plates and silverware, among other duties. Even
`
`though Defendants required Plaintiff, the subclass of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Tipped
`
`Subclass employees to engage in non-tipped activities in excess of two hours or 20% of the total
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 14 of 26
`
`hours worked each shift, Defendants improperly claimed tip credit for all hours worked by tipped
`
`employees.
`
`39.
`
`Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was subject to an invalid tip pool wherein
`
`managers and non-tipped employees such as hosts participated. The subclass of FLSA Collective
`
`Plaintiffs and the Tipped Subclass similarly suffered from Defendants utilization of an invalid tip
`
`pool wherein managers and non-tipped employees such as hosts participated
`
`40.
`
`In addition, Defendants would frequently fail to provide Plaintiff with any tips. As
`
`it can be seen on Exhibit F, Defendants compensated Plaintiff on a tip credit basis of $10 per hour
`
`and failed to compensate Plaintiff with tips. As an example, on the week of 10/18/2021 – 10/24/21,
`
`Plaintiff worked 15.87 hours on a tip credit basis and Defendants paid Plaintiff no tips. Thus,
`
`during that week, Defendants retained 100% of the tips earned and therefore, Plaintiff’s regular
`
`hourly rate improperly fell below the minimum wage. Defendants similarly kept and failed to
`
`distribute the tips among a subclass of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Tipped Subclass members.
`
`41.
`
`Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants improperly deducted a meal credit
`
`from Plaintiff’s wages under FLSA § 203(m) and NYCRR § 146-1.9 for each shift worked, without
`
`regard to whether the meal credit deducted exceed the meals “reasonable cost”3, whether the meals
`
`provided satisfied New York State’s nutritional requirements containing all four (4) food groups4,
`
`and whether Plaintiff actually consumed the credited meals or not. Defendants’ provided meals
`
`consisted only of chicken and pasta, with no drinks such as coffee, tea, or sodas, and failed to
`
`satisfy the New York State’s nutritional requirements. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class
`
`Members similarly had meal credits improperly deducted from their wages.
`
`
`
`3 29 C.F.R. § 531.3
`4 NYCRR § 146-3.7
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 15 of 26
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff and Class members did not receive wage statements that were in
`
`compliance with the NYLL. Defendants failed to satisfy the requirements under the NYLL because
`
`they failed to provide proper wage statements due to an invalid tip credit, unpaid wages, including
`
`overtime, illegally retained gratuities, and invalid meal credit deductions for each payment period.
`
`In other words, Plaintiff and Class members did not receive proper wage statements, as their
`
`statements failed to accurately reflect the number of hours worked and their proper compensation.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class members with proper wage
`
`notices at hiring and at all changes of payrate thereafter. Plaintiff did not receive proper wage
`
`notices either upon being hired or upon every change of pay rate in violation of the NYLL.
`
`44.
`
`Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not
`
`paying the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage, and the proper overtime
`
`rate thereof for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek, to Plaintiff, a subclass of FLSA
`
`Collective Plaintiffs and the Tipped Subclass members. Defendants were not entitled to claim any
`
`tip credits under the NYLL.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not
`
`paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class members their proper wages, including
`
`overtime.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not
`
`paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class members their proper wages, including
`
`overtime, due to timeshaving.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
`
`improperly deducting meal credits from Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`members, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 16 of 26
`
`48.
`
`Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not
`
`providing proper wage statements as required under the NYLL.
`
`49.
`
`Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not
`
`providing proper wage notices to employees, at the beginning of employment and at dates of all
`
`wage changes thereafter, pursuant to the requirements of the NYLL.
`
`Discrimination Allegations
`
`50.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff suffered from Defendants’ discriminatory practices and the
`
`hostile work environment fostered by Defendants, as described below:
`
`a. Plaintiff MERA is a homosexual male;
`
`b. After Plaintiff was transferred to Defendants’ “Kyma Hudson Yards” location,
`
`Plaintiff suffered a constant barrage of discriminatory abuse because of his sexual
`
`orientation;
`
`c. Since Plaintiff DANILO MERA’s first day at “Kyma Hudson Yards”, whenever
`
`Plaintiff entered the kitchen, the Executive Chef George would say aloud “I don’t
`
`want faggots running food in this Restaurant!” and “I don’t want this faggot in my
`
`kitchen!”;
`
`d. Similarly, whenever Plaintiff was in the same room with the Executive Chef, he
`
`would loudly announce to other employees “That guy is a faggot, did you know he
`
`is a faggot?”
`
`e. Sous Chef “Dano” would similarly call Plaintiff “faggot” or “maricon” (which is a
`
`derogatory term for homosexuals in Spanish) anytime he spoke to him.
`
`f. Similarly, the Sous Chef “Dano” would loudly ask “that guy is a faggot right?”
`
`every time Plaintiff walked past him.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 17 of 26
`
`g. In addition, the Executive Chef encouraged other workers to use homophobic slurs
`
`against Plaintiff. When the Executive Chef called Plaintiff homophobic slurs or
`
`names, other employees felt encourage to verbally abuse Plaintiff;
`
`h. Plaintiff, as a busser and runner, had to constantly get in the kitchen. Every time
`
`that Plaintiff had to perform his job, Plaintiff had to listen the Executive Chef’s and
`
`Sous Chef’s homophobic rants.
`
`i. Plaintiff constantly told Executive Chef George and Sous Chef “Dano” to stop
`
`using such homophobic, bigoted, and offensive language, but nothing would ever
`
`happen as a result of his complaints.
`
`j.
`
`Individual Defendant MERKOURIOS ANGELIADES was aware of this
`
`discriminative and humiliating practice. After the Executive Chef George
`
`complained to Individual Defendant MERKOURIOS ANGELIADES that Plaintiff
`
`is homosexual and he doesn’t want homosexuals in his kitchen, Individual
`
`Defendant answered to the Chef “don’t worry, he is not gay”, to which the
`
`Executive Chef asked Individual Defendant again “are you sure Danilo is not a
`
`faggot? I don’t want faggots working here”.
`
`k. Individual Defendant did not reprimand nor request that the Executive Chef George
`
`and Sous Chef “Dano” stop with the biased and discriminative behavior.
`
`l. Plaintiff was the only homosexual employee at all of Defendants’ location. It is of
`
`Plaintiff’s understanding, based on the Executive Chef’s comments, that
`
`Defendants do not hire homosexual employees based on their sexual orientation.
`
`m. On March 18, 2022, unable to continue working due to the continued harassment
`
`and abuse, Plaintiff was constructively terminated.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-04114 Document 1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 18 of 26
`
`51.
`
`Defendants have a cruel and biased practice of verbally abusing members of the
`
`LGBTQ community. Because of this biased practice, Plaintiff suffered physical discomfort and
`
`emotional humiliation while working for Defendants. As a result, Plaintiff’s act of quitting was in
`
`fact a constructive termination due to the hostile work environment and discrimination Plaintiff
`
`suffered throughout his employment.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff retained Lee Litigation Group, PLLC to represent Plaintiff, FLSA
`
`Collective Plaintiffs and Class members.
`
`STATEME

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