Exhibit,Appendix: Andras Bago, Alexandru Gerea individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. La Brochette, Inc., Aba Koiunov

On April 20, 2023 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Alexandru Gerea Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Andras Bago, and Aba Koiunov, La Brochette, Inc., for Torts - Other (New York Labor Law) in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023

EXHIBIT A
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ANDRAS BAGO and ALEXANDRU GEREA, Index No.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, SUMMONS

- against -

LA BROCHETTE, INC. and ABA KOIUNOV,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------------x
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:

La Brochette, Inc. Aba Koiunov
340 Lexington Ave 108-15 64th Road
NewYork,NY Queens, NY

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon the plaintiffs attorney an
answer to the complaint in this action within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons
and complaint, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days after service is complete
if this summons and complaint are not personally delivered to you within the State of New York.
In case of your failure to answer,judgment will be taken against you by default for
the relief demanded in the complaint.
Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR § 503 in that New York County is the principal
place of business of defendants. In addition, many of the events giving rise to this action occurred
in New York County.
Dated: New York, New York
April 20, 2023

1 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

VLADECK, RASKIN & CLARK, P.C.

remiah I devaia
Kathleen C. Riley
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and
the New York Class
565 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(212) 403-7300

2 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ANDRAS BAGO and ALEXANDRU GEREA, Index No.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT

- against -
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A
LA BROCHETTE, INC. and ABA KOIUNOV, TRIAL BY JURY

Defendants.
-------------------------------------------x

Plaintiffs Andras Bago ("Bago") and Alexandru Gerea ("Gerea") (collectively,

"Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, through their attorneys

Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C., complain of La Brochette, Inc. ("La Brochette" or the

"Restaurant") and Aba Koiunov ("Koiunov") (collectively, "Defendants") and allege as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Plaintiffs bring this action seeking monetary damages and affirmative relief based

on Defendants' violations of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), New York State Human Rights

Law ("NYSHRL"), and New York City Human Rights Law, ("NYCHRL"), and other applicable

rules, regulations, statutes, and ordinances.

2. La Brochette, Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of

New York, with a principal place of business located at 340 Lexington Avenue, New York, New

York 10016. La Brochette advertises itself as a Kosher steakhouse and sushi bar.

3. Defendants employed Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated to them, as tipped

employees ("Servers"), at La Brochette.

3 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

4. However, until early 2019, Defendants classified all Servers as independent

contractors and issued them 1099-MISC forms in violation of New York law. Beginning in early

2019, Defendants began properly classifying some Servers, such as Gerea, as employees, but

continued to unlawfully classify other Servers, such as Bago, as independent contractors.

5. In addition, Defendants relied on a "tip credit" to pay Servers the "tipped minimum

wage" as opposed to the full minimum wage. Defendants, however, required Servers to share their

tipped income with managers, kitchen staff, and even regular customers of the Restaurant. At

times, Defendants did this by retaining charges purported to be gratuities for Servers.

6. Defendants also failed to pay Servers "spread of hours" pay as required by the

NYLL. Spread of hours pay is pay earned by the Servers under the NYLL for working more than

ten hours in one day, based on the interval between the beginning and end of the Server's workday,

including working time plus time off for meals plus intervals of duty.

7. Defendants also failed to provide Servers with proper notice of the tipped minimum

wage and its requirements. Defendants also failed to keep accurate records of time worked, tips

earned, and wages earned as required by the NYLL. Nor did Defendants make any records of tips

or wages earned available for employees to inspect. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will provide a good

faith-based estimate of total hours worked through telephone records, e-mail records, text

messages, and other means.

8. Defendants often hosted private events. Upon information and belief, Defendants

did not notify customers that the administrative fees charged for these events were not a gratuity

or a tip in a manner sufficient to ensure that a reasonable customer would understand that such

charge was not purported to be a gratuity.

4 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

9. In addition, upon information and belief, Defendants paid Servers the tipped

minimum wage and claimed the tip credit for work done at private events but denied Servers the

opportunity to earn tips at these private events. Upon information and belief, as a result, Defendants

took tip credits for days where Servers worked more than 20% or two hours in a non-tipped

occupation.

10. Defendants willfully violated the NYLL by misclassifying Servers as independent

contractors and forcing Servers to share their tips with non-tipped workers, among other violations.

11. Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated

current and former Servers pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 901 to remedy violations ofN.Y. Lab. Law. §§

190 et seq.; N.Y. Lab. Law§§ 650 et seq.; the supporting New York State Department of Labor

regulations; and related provisions of New York City Law and the Hospitality Industry Wage

Order ("HIWO").

12. In addition, Plaintiff Bago brings this action under the New York State Human

Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law§§ 296 et seq. ("NYSHRL"); and the New York City Human Rights

Law, the Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL") for

disability and age discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Venue is proper in the County of New York pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 503 because the

Restaurant is a resident of the county. Venue is further proper pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 503 because

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this county and

the Restaurant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this county.

5 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

14. On October 1, 2021 and February 14, 2021, Defendants and Plaintiffs entered a

Tolling and Standstill Agreement and a First Amendment to that Agreement, attached hereto as

Exhibit A. Thus, Plaintiffs' claims were tolled between October 1, 2021 and February 27, 2022.

15. Pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law § 215(2)(b), Plaintiff Bago will cause to be served a

copy of this Complaint on the New York State Attorney General.

16. Pursuant to Section 8-502(c) of the New York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiff

Bago will cause to be served a copy of this Complaint on the City of New York Commission on

Human Rights and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Andras Bago

17. Bago is a resident of Queens, New York.

18. From May 2019 to July 2020, Bago was employed by Defendants as a Tipped

Employee, specifically a Server, within the meaning of 3(e) ofN.Y. Lab. Law§ 190(2).

Plaintiff Alexandru Gerea

19. Plaintiff Gerea resides in Queens, New York.

20. From approximately December 2017 to in or around January 2020, Gerea was

employed by Defendants as a Tipped Employee, specifically a Server, within the meaning ofN.Y.

Lab. Law § 190(2).

Defendant La Brochette, Inc.

21. Defendant La Brochette, Inc. is a corporation formed under the laws of New York

and headquartered in New York.

22. Upon information and belief, La Brochette has been in operation since in or around

2012.

6 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

23. At all times hereinafter mentioned, La Brochette was an "employer" within the

meaning ofN.Y. Lab. Law§ 190(3), the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.

24. Upon information and belief, La Brochette maintains control, oversight, and

direction over its operations and employment practices.

Defendant Koiunov

25. Koiunov is the owner, manager, and/or operator of La Brochette.

26. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov often

used the pseudonym "Avi Cohen."

27. Upon information and belief, Koiunov is a resident of Brooklyn, New York.

28. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov was

a shareholder of La Brochette.

29. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov was

and is the Chief Executive Officer of La Brochette.

30. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov was

and is a corporate officer of La Brochette.

31. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov was

and is an agent of La Brochette.

32. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov was, and is listed, as the principal on

La Brochette's New York State liquor license.

33. Upon information and belief, Koiunov has maintained, and currently maintains,

control, oversight, and direction of La Brochette's operations and employment practices.

34. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov was, and is, an "employer" within the

meaning ofN.Y. Lab. Law§ 190(3), the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.

7 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

35. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov had,

and currently has, the authority over personnel decisions and the authority to hire and fire

employees for La Brochette.

36. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov had,

and currently has, the power to make binding decisions for La Brochette.

37. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov had,

and currently has, the power to transfer the assets or liabilities of La Brochette.

38. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Koiunov had,

and currently has, the power to declare bankruptcy on behalf of La Brochette.

39. At all relevant times, Koiunov has maintained, and currently maintains, control,

oversight, and direction over Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees, including timekeeping,

payroll and other employment practices that applied to them.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS

40. At all relevant times, Defendants claimed a "tip credit" to pay Servers the "tipped

minimum wage" as opposed to the full minimum wage. Defendants failed to provide Servers with

proper notice of the tipped minimum wage and its requirements.

41. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Servers "spread of hours" pay as

required by the NYLL.

42. La Brochette routinely engaged m extensive tip theft during Plaintiffs' time

working at the Restaurant.

43. Upon information and belief, large checks, between $6,000 and $15,000, were very

common at La Brochette. During Plaintiffs' tenures, large percentages of the tips that Servers were

8 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

entitled to for the large checks would disappear. La Brochette management and others would

claims those tips.

44. Defendants often retained fees purported to be a gratuity and failed to adequately

notify customers that the administrative fees were not a gratuity or a tip. In addition, Defendants

claimed the tip credit for work that Servers performed for these events. Upon information and

belief, as a result, Defendants took tip credits for days where Servers worked more than 20% or

two hours in a non-tipped occupation.

45. Upon information and belief, prior to early 2019, all Servers were misclassified as

independent contractors.

46. Upon information and belief, in 2019, La Brochette instituted a tip pooling policy

but never advised Servers of the tip pooling policy in writing.

47. In addition, La Brochette owners and managers routinely took large amounts of

money from the tip pool before distributing it to the Servers. Some of these tips were even

distributed to Defendants' customers. Specifically, certain La Brochette customers who brought

large parties to the Restaurant would receive kickbacks taken from the tip pool.

48. La Brochette also did not keep the records required of employers under the NYLL

and Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTP A").

49. Before 2019, La Brochette did not require Servers, including Gerea, to consistently

clock in and out or record their hours worked.

50. After 2019, Plaintiffs routinely witnessed or were aware of managers changing their

time records.

9 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

51. In addition, after early 2019, Defendants continued to deny Servers access to any

records of their earned wages and tips and continued to fail to provide Servers with proper notice

of the tipped minimum wage and its requirements.

52. Other unlawful practices continued as well. For example, after early 2019, some

Servers continued to be misclassified as independent contractors.

NYLL CLASS ACTION CLAIMS

53. The Class Representatives bring the First Cause of Action on their own behalf and

as a class action, on behalf of those similarly situated, pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 901 (the "New York

Class"). The New York Class is defined as :

54. All Servers who are currently or have been employed by Defendants and were paid

less than the minimum wage, at any time within the six years prior to the filing of the Complaint

through the entry of judgment in this matter (the "New York Class Period").

55. The persons in the New York Class are so numerous thatjoinder of all members is

impracticable. The precise number of such persons is unknown and facts upon which the

calculation of that number are presently within the sole control of the Defendants.

56. There are questions of law and fact common to the New York Class that

predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the New York Class,

including but not limited to:

a. Whether Defendants employed the Class Representatives and the New York Class
within the meaning ofN.Y. Lab. Law§§ 190 et. seq.;

b. Whether Defendants unlawfully failed to pay the Class Representatives and the
New York Class minimum wage in violation of and within the meaning of N.Y.
Lab. Law§§ 190 et. seq. and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
Regulations, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 146-1.2, 146-1.3;

c. Whether Defendants unlawfully required the Class Representatives and the New
York Class to share their tips with employees and non-employees who were

10 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

ineligible to receive shared tips in violation ofNew York State Department of Labor
Regulations, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 146-1.3, 146-2.14, 146-2.15;

d. Whether Defendants had a policy or practice of failing to provide adequate notice
of their payment of a reduced minimum wage to the Class Representatives and the
New York Class in violation of New York State Department of Labor Regulations,
12 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 146-2.2, 146-2.3

e. Whether Defendants failed to keep accurate time and payroll records for the Class
Representatives and the New · York Class in violation of New York State
DepartmentofLaborRegulations, 12N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 146-2.1, 146-2.17;

f. Whether Defendants' policy of failing to pay the minimum wage to the Class
Representatives and the New York Class was instituted willfully or with reckless
disregard of the law;

g. Whether Defendants' policy of distributing Servers' tipped income to employees
and non-employees that do not customarily and regularly receive tips from
customers was instituted willfully or with reckless disregard of the law;

h. Whether Defendants' policy failing to provide adequate notice of their payment of
a reduced minimum wage to the Class Representatives and the New York Class
was instituted willfully or with reckless disregard of the law;

i. Whether Defendants failed to compensate the Class Representatives and the New
York Class for "spread of hours" pay as required under the NYLL and New York
City law

J. The proper measure of damages sustained by the Class Representatives and the
New York Class; and

k. Whether Defendants should be enjoined from such violations in the future.

57. The Class Representatives fairly and adequately protect the interests of the New

York Class and have no interests antagonistic to the class. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys

who are experienced and competent in both class litigation and employment litigation.

58. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where

individual Plaintiffs lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in state court

against a corporate defendant. The damages sustained by individual class members are small,

11 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation. Class action

treatment will obviate unduly duplicative litigation and the possibility of inconsistent judgments.

59. Further, the Class Representatives and the New York Class have been equally

affected by Defendants' failure to pay the minimum wage pursuant to the NYLL. Moreover,

members of the New York Class still employed by Defendants may be reluctant to raise individual

claims for fear of retaliation.

60. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the New

York Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief

with respect to the class was a whole.

61. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the class. Defendants subjected the Class

Representatives and the other class members to their policies, practices, programs, procedures,

protocols, and plans alleged herein concerning the non-payment of the minimum wage, tip theft,

and the failure to keep adequate records. The job duties of the Class Representatives are typical of

those of the class members.

62. The Class Representatives intend to send notice to all members of the New York

Class to the extent required by C.P.L.R. § 904.

INDIVIDUAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Facts Related to Plaintiff Alexandru Gerea

63. Gerea worked at La Brochette in or around 2014 for several months and returned

to work at the Restaurant to work as a Server in December 2017.

64. From 2017 to early 2019, La Brochette misclassified Gerea an independent

contractor and issued him a 1099-MISC. Gerea's paychecks did not reflect his hours or his tips.

12 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

65. Customers regularly tipped Gerea. Certain regular customers of La Brochette

would bring large groups into the Restaurant resulting in large checks of $6,000 of more. Gerea

only received a small portion of his tips associated with these checks.

66. Defendants failed to adequately inform Gerea of the tipped minimum wage or tip

credit provisions of the NYLL, or their intent to apply a tip credit to his wages.

67. Defendants frequently required Gerea to perform unpaid, off-the-clock work.

68. Defendants often required Gerea to work multiple shifts in a day beginning during

lunch service and ending in the early hours of the morning of the next day, resulting in an interval

of more than 10 hours. Though Gerea routinely worked these shifts, he never received "spread of

hours" pay.

69. La Brochette did not provide Gerea with any of the forms that the NYLL or the

Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTP A") required, such as a wage notice or an accounting of gross

wages, deductions, allowances, and net wages.

70. In or around February 2019, La Brochette began issuing Gerea pay stubs that -

while not correctly reflecting his tips or hours - included an accounting of gross wages, net pay,

and tax deductions and withholdings.

71. However, La Brochette management continued to steal Gerea's tips. Gerea left his

position at the Restaurant in or around January 2020.

72. During his tenure, La Brochette management often mentioned their organized

crime connections to Gerea and other Servers and made threats about what would happen to those

Servers if they made legal complaints.

Facts Related to Plaintiff Andras Bago

73. Bago worked for La Brochette as a Server from May 2019 to July 2020.

13 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

74. During his tenure at La Brochette, Bago suffered from chronic lumbar pain related

to a herniated disc in his lower back and compression and/or inflammation of a spinal never, which

often caused pain in his right leg and lower back.

75. At the end of 2019, Bago was 46. Bago was born in August 1973.

76. From in or around May 2019 to August 2019, La Brochette did not pay Bago any

wage for the time he worked, asserting that he was "in training." Nor did Bago receive any portion

of tips he earned during this time. During this training, Bago performed the ordinary duties of a

Server, shadowed other Servers, and performed side work.

77. Beginning in or around August 2019, La Brochette began paying Bago but

misclassified him as an independent contractor and issued him a 1099-MISC.

78. Customers regularly tipped Bago. Certain regular customers of La Brochette would

bring large groups into the Restaurant resulting in large checks of $6,000 of more. Bago only

received a small portion of his tips associated with these large checks.

79. Defendants failed to adequately inform Bago of the tipped minimum wage or tip

credit provisions of the NYLL, or their intent to apply a tip credit to his wages.

80. Defendants often required Bago to work multiple shifts in a day beginning during

lunch service and ending in the early hours of the morning of the next day, resulting in an interval

of more than ten hours. Though Bago routinely worked these shifts, he never received "spread of

hours" pay.

81. Defendants frequently required Bago to perform unpaid, off-the-clock work.

82. La Brochette never provided Bago with any of the forms that the NYLL and the

WTPA required such as a wage notice or an accounting of gross wages, deductions, allowances,

and net wages.

14 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

83. In early 2019, when many Servers were moved to "employee" status and asked to

complete W-4 tax forms and other employment-related documents, La Brochette excluded Bago

and continued to misclassify him as an independent contractor.

84. In addition, during his time at La Brochette, the Restaurant repeatedly discriminated

against Bago because of his age and disability. For example, Restaurant management often referred

to Bago, who was is 46 at the end of 20199, as an "old man" and called him "slow" and "deaf."

When Bago would complain about his differential treatment, La Brochette management would tell

him that he should skip his next scheduled shift and that he could accept his treatment or quit and

find another job.

85. In mid-March 2020, then-New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the

closure of non-essential businesses due to the novel coronavirus, COVID-19; several days later,

then-Governor Andrew Cuomo extended this to the entire state of New York, issuing a stay-at-

home order for non-essential workers. On March 16, 2020, Governor Cuomo shut down indoor

dining.

86. As a result, La Brochette closed its dine-in business and Bago was unemployed for

most of the spring and unable to find work as a waiter. When La Brochette reopened in the summer,

Bago was invited to return to the Restaurant to work.

87. However, after Bago returned to work at La Brochette in mid-July 2020, due to his

chronic lumbar pain, he requested a reasonable accommodation of not having to lift heavy items.

La Brochette management told Bago, in sum and substance, that given his physical restrictions he

should find employment elsewhere.

88. In addition to rejecting Bago's request, immediately after Bago requested a

reasonable accommodation, La Brochette stopped adding Bago to the shift schedule. When Bago

15 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

called about coming into work, La Brochette's management told him there were no shifts available

for him. Upon information and belief, this was in discrimination based on his age and disability

and retaliation for Bago's request for a reasonable accommodation.

89. When Bago attempted to find an equivalent position elsewhere, La Brochette

retaliated against him further. In 2021, Bago began training as a server at a high-end Chinese

restaurant in Tribeca. During his training, management at the Tribeca restaurant called La

Brochette to check Bago's references. Upon information and belief, after Bago had retained

counsel and notified La Brochette of his claims, La Brochette told management at the Tribeca

restaurant that Bago was lazy, a bad worker, and a thief. As a result, Bago lost the position at the

Tribeca restaurant.

90. Bago was not alone m his experience: the Restaurant routinely flouted other

employment and labor laws. For example, La Brochette failed to pay for the worker's

compensation insurance the Restaurant was required to carry under New York State law. As a

result, in one instance where an employee very severely cut his finger, La Brochette management

told the employee, in sum and substance, that it would not help him and to go figure it out himself.

16 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY THE MINIMUM WAGE UNDER THE NYLL

(On behalf of Plaintiffs and the New York Class)

91. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the New York Class, repeat and reallege

paragraphs 1 through 90 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

92. Defendants employed Plaintiffs and the members of the New York Class and

willfully failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the members of the New York Class for the time

worked at or above the minimum wage, as required by the NYLL.

93. By the course of conduct set forth above, Defendants have violated N.Y. Lab. Law

§§ 650 et seq. and 12 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 146-1.1 et seq.

94. Defendants have a policy and practice of refusing to pay the minimum wage to

Plaintiffs and the members of the New York Class and of misclassifying employees as independent

contractors.

95. Defendants were not eligible to avail themselves of the New York tipped minimum

wage rate because Defendants failed to inform Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class of

the tip credit; distributed a portion of Plaintiffs' and members of the tips to employees and non-

employees who were not eligible to share in tips; and required Plaintiffs and members of the New

York Class to spend over 20 percent of their work time performing non-tipped work at private

events.

96. Defendants failure to pay the minimum wage to Plaintiffs and the members of the

New York Class was willful within the meaning ofN.Y. Lab. Law§ 663.

97. As a consequence of the willful underpayment of wages, alleged above, Plaintiffs

and the members of the New York Class have incurred damages thereby and Defendants are

17 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

indebted to them in the amount of the unpaid minimum wages, together with interest, liquidated

damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, in an amount to be determined at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

TIP MISAPPROPRIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE NYLL

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the New York Class)

98. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the New York Class, repeat and reallege

paragraphs 1 through 97 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

99. Defendants unlawfully demanded, directly or indirectly, part of the gratuities that

Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class received be shared with non-employees and

employees other than Servers, bartenders, or other similar employees, in violation of N.Y. Lab.

Law§ 196-d and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

100. Defendants have a policy and practice of unlawfully demanding, directly or

indirectly, part of the gratuities that Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class received be

shared with non-employees and employees other than Servers, bartenders, or other similar

employees, in violation ofN.Y. Lab. Law§ 196-d and the supporting New York State Department

of Labor regulations.

101. Defendants' policy and practice was willful within the meaning ofN.Y. Lab. Law

§ 663.

I 02. As a consequence of the willful misappropriation of tips, alleged above, Plaintiffs

and the members of the New York Class have incurred damages thereby and the Defendants are

indebted to them in the amount of the unpaid gratuities, together with interest, liquidated damages,

and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, in an amount to be determined at trial.

18 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY NON-OVERTIME WAGES IN VIOLATION OF THE NYLL

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the New York Class)

103. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the New York Class, repeat and reallege

paragraphs 1 through 102 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

104. Plaintiffs and the New York Class were entitled to their regular hourly wage for

each hour they worked for Defendants up to and including 40 hours per week.

105. Defendants employed Plaintiffs and the New York Class as Servers and willfully

failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the New York Class at their regular hourly rates for off-the-

clock work up to and including 40 hours per week, in violation of the requirements of the NYLL,

including, but not limited to, N.Y. Lab. Law§ 661(3).

106. Defendants also denied Plaintiffs and the New York Class spread of hours pay that

they were entitled to under the NYLL.

107. The complete records that La Brochette maintained concerning the number of hours

worked by Plaintiffs and the New York Class as well as the compensation Plaintiffs and the New

York Class received in workweeks in which unpaid hours were worked are in the exclusive

possession and control of Defendants, and as such, Plaintiffs and the New York Class are unable

to state at this time the exact amount due and owing to them.

108. Defendants failed to keep, make, preserve, maintain, and furnish accurate records

of time worked by Plaintiffs and the New York Class.

109. By the course of conduct set forth above, Defendants violated N. Y. Lab. Law § 650

19 of 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023
04/20/2023 08:00
05:17 PM INDEX NO. 153644/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023
04/21/2023

110. Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to compensate Plaintiffs and the

New York Class for off-the-clock work.

111. Defendants' failure to pay compensation to Plaintiffs and the New York Class was

willful within the meaning ofN.Y. Lab. Law§ 663.

112. As a consequence of the

Case Info

Judge

Lisa S. Headley Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 06, 2023

Case Filing Date

April 20, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Exhibit,Appendix: Andras Bago, Alexandru Gerea individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. La Brochette, Inc., Aba Koiunov

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties