Lane v. Koessler

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________
MARY KATHLEEN LANE, REBECCA ALLEN,
MITCHELL FANNIN, RACHEL HERMAN-GROSS,
CHRISTOPHER KEROACK, ANNA KNECHT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MOLLY FORD KOESSLER, WILLIAM KOESSLER,
AND MOLLYWORLD, LLC, dba WILLIAM K’S,
Defendants. January 30, 2018
__________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Since 2015, the City of Buffalo has invested approximately $900,000 in the facility for
William K’s, a waterfront restaurant at the Erie Basin Marina owned and operated by William
Koessler, Molly Ford Koessler, and Mollyworld, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). While
benefitting from city funds, Defendants have committed numerous federal, state, and local wage
and hour violations, including inter alia, failure to pay the federal and state minimum wage,
failure to pay federal and state overtime, failure to pay the living wage under the Buffalo Living
Wage Ordinance as required by Mollyworld, LLC’s contract with the City of Buffalo,
maintenance of an illegal tip pool, requiring its employees to work off-the-clock for no pay, and
failure to pay spread-of-hours pay. Plaintiffs, six former employees of Defendants, bring this
action to recover damages caused by these violations.
Case 1:18-cv-00159 Document 1 Filed 01/30/18 Page 1 of 22

2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. §
206(b), and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state and local law claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part of the events giving
rise to this action occurred within this District, and Defendants are located, reside, or do
business in this District.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Mary Kathleen Lane worked at William K’s from approximately the middle of
April 2016 until the approximately the middle of July 2016. At all relevant times, Ms.
Lane worked for the benefit of Defendants.
4. Plaintiff Rebecca Allen worked at William K’s from approximately the middle of
December 2015 until approximately late July 2016. At all relevant times, Ms. Allen
worked for the benefit of Defendants.
5. Plaintiff Mitchell Fannin worked at William K’s from approximately the beginning of
March 2016 until approximately late October 2016. At all relevant times, Mr. Fannin
worked for the benefit of Defendants.
6. Plaintiff Rachel Herman-Gross worked at William K’s from approximately December
2015 until approximately the middle of June 2016. At all relevant times, Ms. Herman-
Gross worked for the benefit of Defendants.

3
7. Plaintiff Christopher Keroack worked at William K’s from approximately the middle of
December 2015 until approximately the end of July 2016. At all relevant times, Mr.
Keroack worked for the benefit of Defendants.
8. Plaintiff Anna Knecht worked at William K’s from approximately the middle of April
2016 until the end of October 2016. At all relevant times, Ms. Knecht worked for the
benefit of Defendants.
9. Defendant Mollyworld, LLC (“Mollyworld”), is a limited liability corporation registered
in the State of New York.
10. Mollyworld owns and operates William K’s Restaurant.
11. Defendants Molly Ford Koessler and William Koessler are joint employers with
Mollyworld at William K’s.
12. Molly Ford Koessler is the President and CEO of Mollyworld.
13. William Koessler is a member of Mollyworld.
14. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Molly Ford Koessler and William
Koessler are residents of the State of New York.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Mollyworld, LLC
15. William K’s is a “fine dining” restaurant, operating at 329 Erie Street in Buffalo, New
York, 14202.
16. Upon information and belief, William K’s opened for business on December 31, 2015.
17. Molly Ford Koessler and William Koessler both had the ability to hire, fire, and
determine amount of pay, role, and responsibilities of the employees of William K’s.

4
18. For all relevant times, Defendants failed to keep adequate records of hours worked by
Plaintiffs.
19. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, William K’s had an annual gross
volume of sales made or business done not less than $500,000.
20. At all relevant times, each Defendant, each Plaintiff, and other employees handled, sold,
or otherwise worked on goods that moved in or were produced for interstate commerce.
21. Mollyworld contracted with the City of Buffalo to operate The Hatch restaurant on the
City’s marina in approximately April 2014, with plans to open a second enclosed
restaurant at a later date.
22. Mollyworld’s contract specified that its operations and employees were covered by the
City’s Living Wage Ordinance.
23. Mollyworld’s contract also specified that Mollyworld was obligated to fully familiarize
itself with the Living Wage Ordinance.
24. Buffalo’s Living Wage Ordinance required those contracting with the City to pay their
employees $13.06 per hour in 2016.
25. At that time, Buffalo’s Living Wage Ordinance did not permit tips to be counted as
wages.
26. On or around September 14, 2015, Buffalo’s Living Wage Commission (“the
Commission”) received a letter from Ms. Koessler, asking that the Commission “give
consideration to reducing this wage in the new restaurant for tipped employees to $8.75
per hour + tips.”

5
27. On or around October 6, 2015, the Commission informed Ms. Koessler that tips could not
be counted as wages and that there was no exception or exemption under the Living
Wage Ordinance that would allow for the wage to be reduced for tipped employees.
28. Despite the correspondence with the Commission, Defendants paid Plaintiffs wages
below $13.06 per hour.
29. The Commission wrote to Ms. Koessler on or about June 1, 2016 with a list of employees
who did not appear to be making a living wage.
30. Even after this communication, Defendants continued to pay Plaintiffs less than the living
wage.
31. The Commission held a hearing on or around December 5, 2016.
32. Ms. Koessler was present at the hearing.
33. Upon information and belief, at the December 5, 2016 hearing Ms. Koessler alleged that
she had asked the Mayor for “assistance,” and expressed surprise that the Mayor had not
intervened on her behalf to settle her wage issue.
34. On or about December 15, 2016, the Commission issued a recommendation that
Mollyworld make full restitution to all employees who had received less than the living
wage.
35. The Commission also recommended that the City terminate its contract with Mollyworld
if Mollyworld failed to provide documentation of such restitution by February 1, 2017.
36. Upon information and belief, Defendants have not made restitution to Plaintiffs.
37. On or around March 23, 2017, Mollyworld’s attorney contacted the Mayor seeking a
“solution” to the requirement to pay its workers the living wage.

6
38. The Buffalo Common Council voted to change the Living Wage Ordinance in the
summer of 2017 so that tips could be counted as wages. That change was not made
retroactive. Tips could not be counted as wages for the entire time Plaintiffs were
employed by Defendants.
39. Through the time period in which Defendants failed to pay their employees the living
wage, they also committed numerous federal and state law violations, including failure to
pay the federal and state minimum law, failure to pay federal and state overtime,
maintenance of an illegal tip pool, requiring employees to work off-the-clock for no pay,
and failure to pay spread-of-hours pay.
Mary-Kathleen Lane
40. Ms. Lane was hired to work at William K’s in approximately the middle of April 2016.
41. Ms. Lane worked at William K’s until approximately the middle of July 2016.
42. Ms. Lane performed a number of tasks while an employee at William K’s, including
greeting customers, serving tables, serving food, and other typical service industry duties.
43. Ms. Lane worked approximately seven hours a day five days a week.
44. Defendants paid Ms. Lane a server’s wage of $7.50 per hour instead of the living wage of
$13.06 per hour.
45. Upon information and belief, Ms. Lane did not receive written notice that Defendants
were taking a tip allowance in paying her $7.50 per hour.
46. Ms. Lane participated in a tip pool to receive her tips.
47. Employees who did not customarily and regularly receive tips and who were not
ordinarily engaged in personal customer service also took part in the tip pool.
48. Ms. Lane worked an extra hour off the clock between three and five times a week.

7
49. She spent this hour organizing and distributing the tip pool.
50. She was not paid for this extra hour.
51. Ms. Lane worked more than 40 hours per week at least one time.
52. Defendants did not pay Ms. Lane overtime for hours she worked over 40 per week.
53. Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay Ms. Lane overtime for
hours worked beyond 40 per week.
54. There were occasionally more than ten hours between the beginning and the end of Ms.
Lane’s shift.
55. Ms. Lane was not paid for an additional hour at the minimum wage for the days when
there were more than ten hours between the beginning and the end of her shift.
Rebecca Allen
56. Rebecca Allen was hired to work at William K’s around the middle of December 2015.
57. Ms. Allen worked at William K’s until approximately the end of July 2016
58. She was hired as a bartender at a rate of $7.50 per hour.
59. Upon information and belief, Ms. Allen did not receive written notice of her rate of pay,
or of the fact that Defendants were taking a tip allowance.
60. Between the middle of December and December 31, 2015, Ms. Allen worked
approximately 20 hours setting up William K’s before it opened and doing work-related
errands like shopping for employee uniforms.
61. There were no customers at this time, so she received no tips.
62. Between December 31, 2015 and approximately June 12, 2016, Ms. Allen worked
approximately 35 hours per week as a bartender.
63. After approximately June 12, 2016, Ms. Allen began to receive a weekly salary of $360.

8
64. She was not informed of her new rate of pay in writing.
65. Between approximately June 12 and the end of July 2016, Defendants did not keep
records of the hours Ms. Allen worked and Ms. Allen was not paid based on the actual
number of hours she worked.
66. After approximately June 12, 2016, Ms. Allen began to perform tasks such as inventory
and training bartenders, as well as continuing to bartend.
67. Between approximately June 12 and the end of July 2016, Ms. Allen worked between 45
and 60 hours per week.
68. This included approximately six hours per week doing work-related tasks such as
scheduling while at home and running errands for Defendants.
69. Ms. Allen did not receive any overtime pay for the hours she worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
70. Upon information and belief, defendants willfully failed to pay Ms. Allen overtime for
the hours she worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
71. Between approximately June 12 and the end of July, there were more than ten hours
between the beginning and the end of Ms. Allen’s shift approximately five times a week.
72. Ms. Allen was not paid for an additional hour on the days when there were more than ten
hours between the beginning and the end of a shift.
Mitchell Fannin
73. Mitchell Fannin was hired to work at William K’s around the beginning of March 2016.
74. Mr. Fannin worked at William K’s until approximately the end of October 2016.
75. Mr. Fannin performed a number of tasks while an employee at William K’s, including
preparing food and cleaning the kitchen. He did not receive any tips.

9
76. Defendants paid Mr. Fannin $15 per hour for approximately the first month of his
employment. He did not work over 40 hours per week in this period.
77. Upon information and belief, Mr. Fannin did not receive written notice of his rate of pay.
78. At approximately the beginning of April 2016, Defendants began to pay Mr. Fannin a
weekly wage of $700 per week.
79. He was promoted to a sous-chef position, but the majority of his time was still spent in
food preparation.
80. Mr. Fannin did not receive written notice of this new pay rate.
81. After the change in his pay, Mr. Fannin began to work approximately 70 hours per week.
82. After the beginning of April 2016, Defendants did not keep records of the hours Mr.
Fannin worked and Mr. Fannin was not paid based on the actual number of hours he
worked.
83. Mr. Fannin did not receive any overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
84. Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay Mr. Fannin overtime for
hours worked beyond 40 per week.
85. There were more than ten hours between the beginning and the end of Mr. Fannin’s shift
approximately six times a week.
86. Defendants did not pay Mr. Fannin for an additional hour at the minimum wage when
there were more than ten hours between the beginning and the end of his shift.
Rachel Herman-Gross
87. Ms. Herman-Gross was hired to work at William K’s around the middle of December
2015.
88. She worked at William K’s until approximately the middle of June 2016.

10
89. She was hired as a bartender and “bar manager.” Her duties as bar manager included
floor managing the restaurant, checking inventory, and ordering supplies.
90. From approximately the middle of December 2015 until approximately the end of
January 2016, her salary was $300 per week.
91. Upon information and belief, Ms. Herman-Gross did not receive written notice of her rate
of pay, or of the fact that Defendants were taking a tip allowance.
92. Until the end of January 2016, Ms. Herman-Gross worked approximately 40 hours per
week.
93. At all relevant times, Defendants did not keep records of the hours Ms. Herman-Gross
worked and Ms. Herman Gross was not paid based on the actual number of hours she
worked.
94. Around the end of January 2016 her pay was changed to $400 per week.
95. She did not receive written notice of her new rate of pay.
96. From the end of January 2016 until approximately the middle of June 2016, Ms. Herman-
Gross regularly worked approximately 68 hours per week, of which approximately 3
hours per week were spent making schedules at home and doing errands for Defendants.
97. Ms. Herman-Gross did not receive any overtime pay for the hours she worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.
98. Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay Ms. Herman-Gross
overtime for hours worked beyond 40 per week.
99. From the end of January 2016 until the middle of June 2016, there were more than ten
hours between the beginning and the end of Ms. Herman-Gross’s shift approximately
four times a week.

11
100. Ms. Herman-Gross was not paid for an additional hour on the days when there
were more than ten hours between the beginning and the end of a shift.
101. On or around May 16, 2016, Ms. Herman-Gross’s pay changed to $798 per week.
102. At this time, her job duties shifted to primarily floor managing, scheduling,
ordering and inventory.
103. Ms. Herman-Gross did not receive written notice of the change in her pay.
104. Ms. Herman-Gross was paid $798 per week from approximately May 16, 2016
until she left William K’s around the middle of June 2016.
Christopher Keroack
105. Mr. Keroack was hired to work at William K’s around the end of December 2015.
106. Mr. Keroack worked at William K’s until approximately the end of July 2016.
107. His initial wage was $7.50 per hour.
108. Upon information and belief, Mr. Keroack was not given notice of his rate of pay,
or of the fact that the Defendants were taking a tip allowance.
109. He worked approximately 20 hours setting up the restaurant before it opened on
December 31, 2015.
110. There were no customers present during this work, so he received no tips.
111. From early January 2016 until he stopped working at William K’s at the end of
July 2016, Mr. Keroack was paid $7.50 per hour for the work he did as a “server” and
$13.01 per hour for the work he did as a “host.”
112. When Mr. Keroack was serving customers, he would clock in at the $7.50 per
hour rate.

12
113. When he switched to host duties, he would clock out and clock back in at the
$13.01 per hour rate.
114. Between early January 2016 and approximately June 12, 2016, Mr. Keroack
worked between 5 and 35 hours per week.
115. On or about June 12, 2016, Mr. Keroack was told he would be “promoted” to an
interim manager.
116. After that date, Mr. Keroack performed “managerial” jobs such as scheduling,
checking inventory, and ordering supplies, as well as continuing to serve customers.
117. Mr. Keroack performed all of these duties both while clocked in at the “server”
rate of $7.50 per hour rate, and while clocked in at the “host” rate of $13.01.
118. Between approximately June 12, 2016 and the end of July 2016, Mr. Keroack
worked between 50 and 65 hours per week.
119. This included approximately 5 hours per week off the clock, doing work-related
tasks such as scheduling while at home.
120. He was paid overtime for on-the-clock hours over 40 per week.
121. Defendants did not pay Mr. Keroack overtime for the off-the-clock hours he
worked in excess of 40 per week.
122. Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay Mr. Keroack
overtime for off-the-clock hours worked beyond 40 per week.
123. In July 2016, there were more than ten hours between the beginning and the end
of Mr. Keroack’s shift approximately six times a week.
124. Mr. Keroack was not paid for an additional hour at the minimum wage on the
days when there were more than ten hours between the beginning and the end of his shift.

13
Anna Knecht
125. Ms. Knecht was hired to work at William K’s around the middle of April 2016.
126. Ms. Knecht worked at William K’s until approximately the end of October 2016.
127. Ms. Knecht performed a number of tasks while an employee at the William K’s,
including preparing food and cleaning the kitchen. She did not receive any tips.
128. Ms. Knecht worked approximately 55 hours per week.
129. Defendants paid Ms. Knecht a weekly wage of $575.
130. Upon information and belief, Ms. Knecht was not given written notice of her rate
of pay.
131. At all relevant times, Defendants did not keep records of the hours Ms. Knecht
worked and Ms. Knecht was not paid based on the actual number of hours she worked.
132. Defendants did not pay Ms. Knecht any overtime for the hours she worked in
excess of 40 per week.
133. Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay Ms. Knecht
overtime for hours worked beyond 40 per week.
134. There were more than ten hours between the beginning and the end of Ms.
Knecht’s shift approximately four times a week.
135. Defendants did not pay Ms. Knecht for an additional hour on the days when there
were more than ten hours between the beginning and the end of her shift.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FEDERAL OVERTIME (FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT)
(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
136. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

14
137. At all relevant times, Mollyworld, LLC, Molly Ford Koessler, and William
Koessler were joint and/or integrated employers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §
203(d) and 29 C.F.R. § 791.2.
138. At all relevant times, all Plaintiffs were employees within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
139. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime for all hours that they worked in
excess of 40 hours per week for each week in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).
140. Defendants’ violations of FLSA were willful.
141. As a result of these violations, Plaintiffs suffered damages.
142. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for these violations of
their rights under federal law.
143. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages for unpaid overtime, plus liquidated
damages in an equal amount and interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be
determined at trial. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE (FLSA)
(Plaintiffs Lane, Allen, and Herman-Gross Against All Defendants)
paragraphs of this complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
145. At all relevant times, Mollyworld, LLC, Molly Ford Koessler, and William
Koessler were joint and/or integrated employers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §
203(d) and 29 C.F.R. § 791.2.

15
146. At all relevant times, all Plaintiffs were employees within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
147. Defendants failed to pay Ms. Lane the minimum hourly wage due to her on
multiple occasions when Ms. Lane worked off the clock in violation of 29 U.S.C. §
206(a)(1)(c).
148. Defendants maintained an invalid tip pool, which deprived Ms. Lane the tips due
to her, in violation of § 203(m).
149. Defendants were not entitled to pay Ms. Lane the “tip credit” minimum wage
because they failed to inform her that they were doing so and because they maintained an
invalid tip pool, both in violation of § 203(m).
150. Defendants failed to pay Ms. Allen the minimum hourly wage due to her for
hours worked between approximately June 12, 2016 and the end of July 2016, and Ms.
Herman-Gross the minimum hourly wage due to her for hours worked between late
January 2016 and approximately May 16, 2016, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(c).
151. As a result of these violations, Ms. Lane, Ms. Allen, and Ms. Herman-Gross
suffered damages.
152. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Ms. Lane, Ms. Allen, and Ms.
Herman-Gross for these violations of their rights under federal law.
153. Defendants’ actions were willful.
154. Ms. Lane, Ms. Allen, and Ms. Herman-Gross are entitled to an award of damages
for unpaid wages, plus liquidated damages in an equal amount and interest, as well as
attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined at trial. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

16
NEW YORK STATE LABOR LAW - OVERTIME
156. Plaintiffs bring this claim under Article 19 § 652 of the Minimum Wage Act
against all Defendants.
157. At all relevant times, all Defendants were “employers” within the meaning of
New York Labor Law Art. 19 § 651(6).
158. At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs within the meaning of N.Y.
Lab. L. Art. 19 § 651.
159. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were “employees” of Defendants within the
meaning of N.Y. Lab. L. Art. 19 § 651(5).
160. Defendants failed to pay overtime wages due to Plaintiffs for hours worked in
excess of forty per week in each week. N.Y.C.R.R. tit. 12 § 142-2.2.
161. As a result, all Plaintiffs suffered damages.
162. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to all Plaintiffs for these violations of
their rights under state law.
163. All Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages for unpaid overtime, plus
liquidated damages in an equal amount and interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, in an
amount to be determined at trial. N.Y. Lab. L. Art. 19 § 652.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEW YORK STATE LABOR LAW – MINIMUM WAGE
(Plaintiffs Lane, Allen, Herman-Gross, and Keroack Against All Defendants)

17
Lab .L. Art. 19 § 651.
168. The defendants failed to pay wages due to Ms. Lane, Ms. Allen, Ms. Herman-
Gross, and Mr. Keroack for work performed in the State of New York at the state
minimum wage, in violation of N.Y. Lab. L. Art. 19 § 652.
169. As a result of these violations, Ms. Lane, Ms. Allen, Ms. Herman-Gross, and Mr.
Keroack suffered damages.
170. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Ms. Lane, Ms. Allen, Ms.
Herman-Gross, and Mr. Keroack for these violations of their rights under state law.
171. Ms. Lane, Ms. Allen, Ms. Herman-Gross, and Mr. Keroack are entitled to an
award of damages for unpaid wages, plus liquidated damages in an equal amount and
interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined at trial. N.Y. Lab. L.
Art. 19 § 652.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEW YORK STATE LABOR LAW – SPREAD-OF-HOURS

18
Lab. L. Art. 19 § 651.
176. Defendants failed to pay “spread-of-hours” wages due to Plaintiffs. N.Y.C.R.R.
tit. 12, § 142.24.
179. All Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages for unpaid “spread-of-hours”
wages, plus liquidated damages in an equal amount and interest, as well as attorneys’
fees, in an amount to be determined at trial. N.Y. Lab. L. Art. 19 § 652.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEW YORK STATE LABOR LAW – WAGE NOTIFICATION

19
Lab. L. Art. 19 § 651.
184. Upon information and belief, defendants failed to notify Plaintiffs of the rate of
pay and any allowances—including a tip credit—the Defendants were taking. N.Y. Lab.
L. Art. 6 § 195(1)(a).
186. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of $50 for every workday on which this
violation occurred up to $5000. N.Y. Lab. L. Art. 6 § 198.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
BUFFALO LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE
(All Plaintiffs Against Mollyworld, LLC)
188. At all relevant times, Mollyworld, LLC was a “covered employer” within the
meaning of City of Buffalo Code § 96-19(C).
189. At all relevant times, Mollyworld, LLC was a “contractor” within the meaning of
City of Buffalo Code § 96-19(C).
190. At all relevant times, Mollyworld, LLC was a “sub-contractor” within the
meaning of City of Buffalo Code § 96-19(C).

20
191. At all relevant times, all Plaintiffs were “covered employees” and/or “employees”
within the meaning of City of Buffalo Code § 96-19(C).
192. Mollyworld, LLC knowingly and willfully failed to pay the living wage to all
Plaintiffs.
194. Mollyworld, LLC is liable to all Plaintiffs for these violations of their rights under
municipal law.
195. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of the difference between the living wage and
the amount actually paid, both for hours worked and as a basis for overtime pay for hours
worked over 40 per week, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs, and such other remedies
as the court may determine to be just. City of Buffalo Code § 96-19(F)(1)(a), (F)(1)(c).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
a. Award all Plaintiffs monetary damages for unpaid overtime, plus liquidated damages in
an equal amount and interest, as provided by the F.L.S.A., 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), in an
amount to be determined at trial;
b. Award Plaintiffs Lane, Allen, and Herman-Gross monetary damages for unpaid wages,
plus liquidated damages in an equal amount and interest, as provided by the F.L.S.A., 29
U.S.C. § 216(b), in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. Award all Plaintiffs monetary damages for unpaid overtime, plus liquidated damages in
an equal amount and interest, as provided by N.Y.C.R.R. tit. 12 § 142-2.2, in an amount
to be determined at trial;

21
d. Award Plaintiffs Lane, Allen, Herman-Gross, and Keroack monetary damages for unpaid
wages, plus liquidated damages in an equal amount and interest, as provided by N.Y.
Lab. L. Art. 19 § 652, in an amount to be determined at trial;
e. Award all Plaintiffs monetary damages for unpaid “spread-of-hours” wages, plus
liquidated damages in an equal amount and interest, as provided by N.Y.C.R.R. tit. 12 §
142-2.4., in an amount to be determined at trial.
f. Award all Plaintiffs monetary damages for failing to provide them with notice of pay, as
provided by N.Y. Lab. L. Art. 6 § 195.
g. Award all Plaintiffs the difference between the living wage and the amount actually paid,
both for hours worked and as a basis for overtime pay, as provided by City of Buffalo
Code § 96-19(F)(1)(a).
h. Award attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs for legal services provided by the University
at Buffalo School of Law’s Community Justice Clinic, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),
N.Y. Lab. L. Art. 19 § 652, and City of Buffalo Code § 96-19(F)(1)(c).
i. Grant such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: January 30, 2018
___/s/ A. Nicole Hallett_______________
A. Nicole Hallett, Esq.
Genevieve Rados, Student Attorney
Community Justice Clinic
University at Buffalo School of Law

22
507 O’Brian Hall, North Campus
Buffalo, NY 14260
(716) 645-2167
nicole@buffalo.edu
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Lane v. Koessler

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Lane v. Koessler

Similar to Lane v. Koessler (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lane v. Koessler