Case Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 7 of 18JUDGE PURWIANUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCASEY individually and on behalf of other Case No.persons Similarly situated who were employed by VIACOMINC., MTV NETWORKS MUSIC PRODUCTION INC.,MTV NETWORKS ENTERPRISES INC. and/or any otherentities affiliated with or controlled by VIACOM MTVNETWORKS MUSIC PRODUCTION INC., and/or MTVNETWORKS ENTERPRISES INC.,Plaintiffs,against VIACOM INC., MTV NETWORKS MUSICPRODUCTION INC., MTV NETWORKS ENTERPRISESand/or any other entities affiliated with or controlledby VIACOM INC., MTV NETWORKS MUSICPRODUCTION INC., and/or MTV NETWORKSENTERPRISES IN C., Defendants.Plaintiff, by his attorneys, Virginia Ambinder, LLP and Leeds Brown Law, P.C..alleges upon knowledge to himself and upon information and belief as to all other matters asfollows:PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1. This action is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafterreferred to as 29 U.S.C. 206 and 2l6(b), New York Labor Law 650 er Seq and663; New York Labor Law 190 er and 12 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations(hereinafter referred to as 142-2.1; to recover unpaid minimum wages owed toPlaintiff and all similarly situated persons who are presently or were formerly employed byVIACOM MTV NETWORKS MUSIC PRODUCTION INC., MTV NETWORKSENTERPRISES INC. and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by VIACOM INC.,Case Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 8 of 18MTV NETWORKS MUSIC PRODUCTION and/or MTV NETWORKS ENTERPRISESINC. (hereinafter collectively as "Defendants").2. Beginning in approximately 2007 and, upon information and belief, continuingthrough the present, Defendants have wrongfully withheld wages from Plaintiff and othersimilarly situated individuals who worked for Defendants.3. Beginning in approximately 2007 and, upon information and belie? continuingthrough the present, Defendants have wrongfully classi?ed Plaintiff and others similarly situatedas exempt from minimum wage requirements.4. Beginning in approximately 2007 and, upon information and belief, continuingthrough the present, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay theiremployees minimum wages as required by applicable federal and state law.5. Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for himself, and on behalf of all similarlysituated employees, all compensation that they were deprived of, plus interest, damages,attorneys? fees and costs.JURISDICTION6. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 2l6(b), and28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1337. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367 of the claims brought under New York Labor Law.7. The statute oflimitations under FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 255(a), for willful violations isthree (3) years.8. The statute of limitations under New York Labor Law 198(3) is six years.IQCase Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 9 of 18VENUE9. Venue for this action in the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) is appropriate because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to theclaims occurred in the Southern District of New York.THE PARTIES10. Plaintiff CASEY is an individual who is currently a resident of NewYork and was employed by Defendants from approximately September 2011 until January 2012.1 1. Although the Defendants misclassi?ed Plaintiff and other members of the putativeclass as unpaid interns, Plaintiff is a covered employee within the meaning of the NYLL.12. Upon information and belief, Defendant VIACOM, INC. is a foreign businesscorporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and authorized to do business inNew York, with its principal place of business at 1515 Broadway, New York, New York 10036,and is engaged in the entertainment industry.13. Upon information and belief, Defendant MTV NETWORKS MUSICPRODUCTIONS INC. is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws ofDelaware and authorized to do business in New York, with its principal place of business at 1515Broadway, New York, New York 10036, and is engaged in the entertainment industry.14. Upon information and belief, Defendant MTV NETWORKS ENTERPRISESINC. is a foreign business corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware andauthorized to do business in New York, with its principal place of business at 1515 Broadway,New York, New York 10036, and is engaged in the entertainment industry.15. Defendants engage in interstate commerce, produce goods for interstatecommerce, and/or handle, sell, or work on goods or materials that have been moved in orproduced for interstate com1ne.rce.Li.)Case Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 10 of 1816. Upon information and belief, Defendants? annual gross volume of sales made orbusiness done is not less than $500,000.CLASS ALLEGATIONS17. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16hereof.18. This action is properly maintainable as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA.29 U.S.C. 21 and as a Class Action under Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.19. This action is brought on behalf ofthe Plaintiff and a class consisting of similarlysituated employees who worked for Defendants as interns, and were thus misclassi?ed as exemptfrom minimum wage requirements.20. Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs who elect to opt-in as part of the collective actionare all victims of the Defendants? common policy and/or plan to violate the FLSA by failingto pay all earned wages; (2) misclassifying Plaintiff and members of the putative collective asexempt from minimum wage requirements; (3) failing to provide the statutory minimum hourlywage for all hours worked pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 206.21. The putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.The size of the putative class is believed to be in excess of 1.000 employees. In addition, thenames of all potential members of the putative class are not known or knowable withoutDefendants? records or discovery.22. The questions of law and fact common to the putative class predominate over anyquestions affecting only individual members. These questions of law and fact include, but arenot limited to: (1) whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the putative classall earned wages; (2) whether the Defendants misclassi?ed Plaintiff and members of the putative.Case Document1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 11 of 18class as exempt from minimum wages; (3) whether the Defendants required Plaintiff andmembers of the putative class to perform work on its behalf and for its bene?t for which theywere not compensated; and (4) whether the Defendants failed to pay the statutory minimumwage rate, in violation of New York state law.23. The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the putative class. ThePlaintiff and putative class members were all subject to Defendants? policies and willfulpractices of failing to pay employees all earned minimum wages. Plaintiff and putative classmembers have thus sustained similar injuries as a result of the Defendants? actions.24. Upon information and belief, Defendants uniformly apply the same employmentpolicies, practices, and procedures to all interns who work at Defendants? locations.25. Plaintiff and his counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of theputative class. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in complex wage and hour collectiveand class action litigation.26. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficientadjudication of this controversy. The individual Plaintiff and putative class action members lackthe financial resources to adequately prosecute separate lawsuits against Defendants. A classaction will also prevent unduly duplicative litigation resulting from inconsistent judgmentspertaining to the Defendants? policies.FACTS27. Beginning in or about 2007 until the present, Defendants employed the Plaintiffand other members of the putative class as interns to perform various tasks related to themaintenance and operations of its mass media company.28. Defendants did not provide any compensation to Plaintiff and members of theputative class for the hours worked.Case Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 12 of 1829. Defendants have benefitted from the work that Plaintiff and members of theputative class performed.30. Defendants would have hired additional employees or required existing staff towork additional hours had Plaintiff and the members of the putative class not performed work forDefendants.31. Defendants did not provide academic or vocational training to Plaintiff ormembers of the putative class.32. Defendants? unlawful conduct has been pursuant to a corporate policy or practic.eof minimizing labor costs by denying Plaintiff and members of the putative class wages inviolation of the FLSA and NYLL.33. Defendants? unlawful conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, has been intentional,willful, and in bad faith, and has caused significant damages to Plaintiff and members of theputative class.34. While working for Defendants, Plaintiff and the members of the putative classwere regularly required to perform work for Defendants, without receiving minimum wages asrequired by applicable federal and state law.35. Speci?cally, Named Plaintiff Casey O?Jeda was employed by the Defendantsfrom approximately September 20l 1 until January 2012.36. While employed as an intern, Plaintiff O?Je.da was responsible for carrying outvarious tasks necessary to the operation and maintenance of Defendants? mobile website, such asupdating and rebooting the website, coding, creating weekly spreadsheets, program design,customer management, and other similar duties.Case Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 13 of 18Throughout the length of his employment, Plaintiff O?Jeda typically worked threedays each week, seven to eight hours per day.38. Plaintiff O?Jeda was not paid any wages, and thu.s was not compensated at a ratein complianc.e with the statutory minimum wage rate.39. Upon information and belief, members of the putative class also did not receiveminimum wages, in violation of state and federal law.FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:FLSA MINIMUM WAGE COMPENSATION40. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 39hereof.41. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 206, "Every employer shall pay to each of his employeeswho in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or isemployed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,wages at the following rates: (1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than (A)$5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after May 25, 2007; (B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12months after that 60th day; and (C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day [July24, 2009]."42. VIACOM, INC. is an employer, within the meaning contemplated, pursuant to 29U.S.C. 203(d).43. MTV NETWORKS MUSIC PRODUCTIONS INC. is an employer, within themeaning contemplated, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 203(d).44. MTV NETWORKS ENTERPRISES INC. is an employer, within the meaningcontemplated, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.. 203(d).Case Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 14 of 1845. Plaintiff and other members of the putative collective action are employees.within the meaning contemplated, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 203(e).46. Plaintiff and other members of the putative collective action, during all relevanttimes, engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or were employed inan enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.47. None of the exemptions of 29 U.S.C. 213 applies to Plaintiff or other similarlysituated employees.48. Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other members ofthe putative collective action minimum wages for all hours worked in any given week.49. Upon information and belief, the failure of Defendants to pay Plaintiff and othermembers of the putative collective action their rightfully-owed wages was willful.50. By the foregoing reasons, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and members of theputative collective action in an amount to be determined at trial, plus liquidated damages in theamount equal to the amount of unpaid wages, interest and attorneys? fees and costs.SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:NEW YORK MINIMUM WAGE COMPENSATION51. Plaintiff repeats and re?alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 50hereof.52. Title 12 142-2.1 states that, ?[t]he basic minirnuin hourly rate shall be:$5.15 per hour on and after March 31, 2000; 316.00 per hour on and after January l, 2005:$6.75 per hour on and after January 1, 2006; $7.15 per hour on and after January 1, 2007:$7.25 per hour on and after July 24, 2009; or, if greater, such other wage as may beestablished by Federal law pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 206 or any successor provisions."Case Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 15 of 1853. New York Labor Law 663 provides that any employee is paid by hisemployer less thanthe wage to which he is entitled under the provisions of this article, he mayrecover in a civil action the amount of any such underpayments, together with costs and suchreasonable attorneys? fees.?54. Pursuant to Labor Law 651, the term ?employer? includes ?any individual,partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, business trust, legalrepresentative, or any organized group of persons acting as employer."55, Pursuant to New York Labor Law 190, er seq., 650, er seq., and the casesinterpreting same, VIACOM, INC. is an ?employer.?56. Pursuant to New York Labor Law 190, at seq, 650, et .seq., and the casesinterpreting same, MTV NETWORKS MUSIC PRODUCTIONS INC. is an ?employer.?57. Pursuant to New York Labor Law 190, er seq., 650, er seq, and the casesinterpreting same, MTV NETWORKS ENTERPRISES INC. is an 58. Pursuant to Labor Law 651, the term ?employee? means ?any individualemployed or permitted to work by an employer in any occupation??59. As persons employed for hire by Defendants, Plaintiff and members of theputative class are ?employees,? as understood in Labor Law 651.60. The minimum wage provisions of Article 19 of the NYLL and the supportingNew York State Department of Labor Regulations apply to Defendants and protect Plaintiff andmembers of the putative class.61. Upon information and belief, Defendants violated New York Labor Law 650 etseq. and 12 142-2.1 by failing to pay Plaintiff a11d other members of the putative classminimum wages for all hours worked in any given week.Case Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 16 of 1862. Upon information and belief, the failure of Defendants to pay Plaintiff and othermembers of the putative class their rightfully-owed wages was willful.63. By the foregoing reasons, Defendants have violated New York Labor Law 650et seq. and 12 142-11, and are liable to Plaintiff and other members of the putativeclass action in an amount to be determined at trial, plus damages, interest, attorneys? fees andcosts.THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:NEVV YORK FAILURE TO PAY WAGES64. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 63hereof.65. Pursuant to Article Six of the New York Labor Law, workers, such as Plaintiffand other members of the putative class, are protected from wage underpayments and improperemployment practices.66. Pursuant to New York Labor Law 652, and the supporting New York StateDepartment of Labor Regulations, "every employer shall pay to each of its employees for eachhour worked a wage of not less than . . . $7.15 on and after January l, 2007, or, if greater, suchother wage as may be established by federal law pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 206 or itssuccessors, or such other wage as may be established in accordance with the provisions of thisarticle."67. Pursuant to New York Labor Law 190, the term "employee" means "any personemployed for hire by an employer in any employment."68. As persons employed for hire by Defendants, Plaintiff and other members of theputative class are "employees," as understood in Labor Law 190.10Case Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 17 of 1869. Pursuant to New York Labor Law 190, the term "employer" includes "anyperson, corporation, limited liability company, or association employing any individual in anyoccupation, industry, trade, business or service."70. As entities that hired the Plaintiff and other members of the putative class,VIACOM, MTV NETWORKS ENTERPRISES INC. and MTV NETWORKS MUSICPRODUCTIONS INC. are ?employers?71. The Plaintiff and other members of the putative class agreed upon wage rate waswithin the meaning of New York Labor Law 190, 191 and 652.72. Pursuant to New York Labor Law 191 and the cases interpreting the same,workers such as Plaintiff and other members of the putative class are entitled to be paid all theirweekly wages "not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wagesare earned."73. In failing to pay the Plaintiff and other members of the putative class properwages, Defendants violated New York Labor Law 191.74. Pursuant to New York Labor Law I93, "No employer shall make any deductionfrom the wages of an employee," such as Plaintiff and other members of the putative class, that isnot otherwise authorized by law or by the employee.75. By withholding wages from Plaintiff and other members of the putative class,pursuant to New York Labor Law 193 and the cases interpreting the same, Defendants madeunlawful deductions in wages owed to Plaintiff and other members of the putative class.76. Upon information and belief, Defendants? failure to pay Plaintiff and members ofthe putative. class minimum wages was willful.llCase Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 18 of 1877. By the foregoing reasons, Defendants have violated New York Labor Law 198and are liable to Plaintiff and other members of the putative class in an amount to be determinedat trial, plus damages, interest, attorneys? fees and costs.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarlysituated who were employed by Defendants, demand judgment:(1) on the first cause of action against Defendants, in an amount to be dete-rmined attrial plus liquidated damages in the amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages, interest,attorneys? fees and costs;(2) on the second cause of action against Defendants, in an amount to be determinedat trial, plus liquidated damages in the amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages, interest,attorneys? fees and Costs;(3) on the third cause of action against Defendants, in an amount to be determined attrial, plus damages, interest, attorneys? fees and costs, pursuant to the cited New York Labor Lawprovisions;(4) such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.Dated: New York, New YorkAugust 13, 2013VIRGINIA AMBINDER, LLPBy: Lloyd R. ArnbinderSuzanne B. Leeds11] Broadway, Suite 1403New York, New York 10006Tel: (212) 943-9080Fax: (212) 943-9082lambinder@vandallp.comLEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.Jeffrey K. BrownOne Old Country Road, Suite 347Carle Place, NY 1 1514Tel: (516) 873-9550PZaz'm'g'_ffand the pur'afi1:e class12