J4IQSEXSRBE®307-AT Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Pa e 1 of 12

14 C

8 8 07

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
——————-- —X
Index No.
ALEXIA PALM ER, individually and on behalf of
All others sunilarly situated,

CLASS A

PLAINT

Plaintiffs,
-against-

Jury Tr'
TRUMP MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC
CORRINE NICOLAS, individually, and
JANE OR JOHN DOE, individually

dKiT 75 20~4
U.S.D.C. S.D. I( Y

CASHIERS

Defendants

Plaintiff Alexia Palmer, by her undersigned attorneys, for her class action complaint
against the Defendants, Trump Model Management, Corrine Nicolas, President of Trump Model
Management and John or Jane Doe, CEO of Trump Model management, collectively and
individM ly, allege upon information and belief, except as to the allegations that pertain to

Plaintiff which are alleged upon personal knowledge, as follows:
I. Plaintiff brings this class action, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
employees, to seek redress for systematic and repeated pattern of class-wide

underpayment, and fi.audulent misrepresentation, against Defendants, a modeling agency.
2. Defendants violated the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), applicable
regulations and common law principles of contract and unjust enrichment, the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO) by (I) failing to pay and perpetrating fiaud on the Plaintiffs

 Case 1i14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed10/15/14 Page 2 of 12
and theClass they seek to represent the actual salary of $75,000.00 as stated in the Labor

Condition Application (LCA) for Nonimmigrant Workers, (2) intentionally and
fi.audulently misrepresenting the actual salary on the LCA as mailed to the D

epartme
nt of

Labor, and (3) failing to pay prevailing wage and/or the actual wage for the occupational
classification.
3. On behalf of the Class, Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, actual, incidental, consequential,
and compensatory damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs. To prevent recurrence of this conduct, Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief on

behalfof herselfand the Class.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action because it presents a
Federal question under the Immigration law of the United States (8 U.S.C. 1182 (n), (t)),

RICO (18 U.S.C. $1962), FLSA (29 U.S.C. g 206), Mail and Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C.
$ $1341, 1343), and common law principles of contract and unjust enrichment.
5. This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants because Defendants operate business in
the State of New York, County of New York.
6. Venue in this Court is proper as Defendant regularly conducts business in the State of
New York and has its office at 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York.

PARTIES
7. PIM'ntiff Alexia Palmer, an individual residing at 104-11 200th Street, Saint Albans, NY
11412, is a model employed by Defendant to perform modeling contracts in New York
via the Defendant.

 Case 1i14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed10/15/14 Page 3 of 12

8. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Trump Model Management ("TMM") was
and is a corporation formed in accordance withthe laws of the State of New York
conducting business in the State of New York. TMM maintains a regular place of
business at 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10011, and 155 Spring street, New York,
NY 10012.
9. At all times relevant to this action, President of TMM, Corrine Nicolas, and CEO of
TMM, John or Jane Doe, have regularly conducted business on behalf of TMM at 155

Spring street, New York, NY 10012.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
10. Plaintiff brings this case pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Article 9 on
behalf of a class (the 'Class') consisting of all current and former models who came fiom
foreign countries; were sponsored for H-1B visas, and did not receive compensations in
accordance with the wages under the Federal Law for the period of six years preceding
the filing of the coniplaint in this case, through the present (the 'Class Period' ).
11. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although the
precise number of such persons is unknown, and the identities of such persons are
presently within the sole knowledge of the Defendants, there are at least hundreds of
models employed by Defendants as of the date this Complaint was filed. Since the Class
also includes former employees since the date six years before the filing o f the complaint,
the class is sufficiently numerous to warrant certification.
12. There are questions of law or fact coriunon to the Class that predominate over any
questions affecting individual members. Those questions include, but are not limited, to
the following:

 Case 1i14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed10/15/14 Page 4 of 12
a. whether Defendants have and are engaged in a pattern or practice of failing to pay fair
wages as per the FLSA and the Immigration Laws;
b. whether Defendants have and are engaged in a pattern of mail &aud where they

knowingly misrepresented facts as pertaining to actual wages paid to their

emp
loyees;

c. whether Defendants have and are engaged in a pattern of breaching contracts with
their employees;
d. whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by their wage policies;
e. whether Defendants should be enjoined fiom continuing the alleged wrongful
practices in violation of applicable laws and regulations; and
f. t he proper amount of damages for the type of injury and losses commonly suffered by
Plaintiff and the Class.
13. PlaintifP s claims are typical of the claims of the Class, b~use they are all current or
former models employed by the Defendants who sustained damages as a result of
Defendants' fraudulent compensation policies and practices. The defenses that likely will
be asserted by Defendants against Plaintiff are typical of the defenses that Defendants
will assert against the Class members.
14. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and have retained
counsel experienced in pursuing complex and class action litigation who will adequately

and vigorously represent the interests of the class.
15. Class action treatment is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Treating this as a class action will perniit a

large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single
forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expenses that

 Case 1:14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed10/15/14 Page 5 of 12
numerous individual actions would entail. As a practical matter, absent a class action,
class members would be reluctant to file individual claims for fear of retaliation. No
difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action that would
preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Class is readily identifiable from
records that Defendants are legally required to maintain.
16. No individual class member has any interest in individually controlling the prosecution of
a separate individual action. No other suits or complaints have been filed by any class
member. In order to pursue these claims in a class action, Plaintiff is waiving any claim
on her own behalf or on behalf of the Class in this lawsuit for liquidated damages.
17. Prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create the risk of
inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that
would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.
18. Defendants have acted, or failed to act, on grounds generally applicable to the Class.
19. Without a class action, Defendants will likely retain the benefit of their wrongdoing and
will continue a course of action which will result in further damages to Plaintiff and the
members of the Class.

STATEMENTS OF FACTS
20. Plaintiff worked as a model on modeling contracts secured through the Defendants and
hence wasDefendants' employee approximately from January 2011 to May 2014.
Plaintiff was under the sole control of the Defendants for all modeling contracts she
performed in New York during such time.

 Case 1:14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed10/15/14 Page 6 of 12
21. Plaintiff worked on twenty one (21) different projects through TMVI from approxhnately
January 2011 to December 2013.
22. The Defendants, withheld its twenty percent (20%) agency fees and charged Plaintiff for

obscure expenses, despite the fact that the Plaintiff was already being charged for siinple,
insignificant expenses postage and makeup kits.
23. In addition, Plaintiff was sent to deriuatologist upon the Defendants' reconnnendation;
she was asked to take walking lessons, constantly supplied with numerous unnecessary
cosmetics kits, and made to take expensive limousines, all at Plaintiff s expense.
24. After deductions of all agency fees, expenses, and allowance, the Plaintiff received a
check in the amount of $3,880.75 for all the work she did from 2011 to 2013.
25. Defendants mailed out an H-I B application with an approved LCA which stated that
Defendants were going to pay the Plaintiff a total of 75,000 a year.
26. Despite an assertion to pay Plaintiff well above the required wage at $75,000 per year as
asserted by the Defendants in the LCA application, the Defendants even failed to pay her
even the prevailing wage of $45,490 per year as required by Immigration laws.
27. By mailing such LCA application Defendants committed mail fraud under RICO and as

the Plaintiffs employer, breached the contractual agreement with the Plaintiff as well.
28. Defendants' actions, as alleged herein, were intentional and not made in good faith.

CLAIMS FOR RELIF.F
COUNTI
(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act & Mail and Wire Fraud)

29. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding
paragraphs.

 Case 1i14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed10/15/14 Page 7 of 12
30. The mail and wire &aud statute (18 U.S.C. f( 1341, 1343) makes it criminal for anyone
to use the mails or wires in furtherance of a scheme to defiaud. The fi'audulent statements
themselves need not be transmitted by mail or wire; it is only required that the scheme to
defiaudbe advanced, concealed or fiuthered by use of the U.S mail or wires.

31. In addition, 18 U.S.C. ( 1962(c) provides a private cause of action for RICO to an injured
person where the conduct of an enterprise created a pattern of racketeering activity that
was the proximate cause of the individual's harm.
32. The LCA application and the H-1B petition mailed on behalf of the Plaintiff stated that

the Defendants would pay her a yearly salary of $75,000 when in reality, Plaintiff was
only paid $3,880.75 for 3 years of her working with the Defendants.
33. The Defendants made intentional misrepresentation to pay the Plaintiff $75,000 when in
fact; the Defendants had no intention of doing so. Such misrepresentation was made
solely to evade immigration laws and to perpetrate Defendants' fraudulent scheme of
exploiting non-immigrant workers by grossly underpaying them.
34. Defendants have engaged in pattern of such mail and wire fiaud by-filing H-1B
applications for the Plaintiff and other model's similarly situated and thus violated RICO.
The mailing of the H-1B applications was to supplement the Defendants' fiaudulent

scheme of underpaying foreign workers and exploiting them.
35. In addition, Plaintiff was asked to sign a separate contract, which explicitly stated that

Plaintiff would be responsible for all expenses and that such expenses would be directly
taken fi o m he paycheck by the Defendant. This was a cover up that Defendants needed
to exploit the Plaintiff and such was indeed the case. Defendants took more than 80'/oof
Plaintiff s hard earned money by cloaking it as "expenses."

 Case 1:14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed10/15/14 Page 8 of 12
36. Lastly, the lure of a higher wage of $75,000, well above the legally required prevailing
wage of $45, 490 per year, was done merely to get models to agree to work for the
Defendants while the Defendants would later 'offset' such outlandish wage offer by

directly witl&olding money Rom the Plaintiff for obscure expenses.
37. Defendants' misrepresentation was intentional and willfuL

COUNT H
(Common Law Breach of Contract)
38. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding
paragraphs.
39. A valid common law contractual agreement was formed when the Defendants agreed to
petition a non-immigrant visa for the Plaintiff. In addition to the LCA application, a
separate contract was also signed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
40. Despite the fact that the separate contract expressly states that there is no
employer/employee or agency relationship, the Defendants' actions clearly establish m
employer/employee relationship.
41. The separate contract gives express power to the Defendants to sign releases on behalf of
the Plaintiff, to collect monies on behalf of the plaintiff, to endorse monetary and other
negotiable instruments on behalf of the Plaintiff. The contract expressly provides for the
Defendants to receive a 20% commission on all modeling contracts that it is able to
secure for the Plaintiff. Clearly such control and authority over the Plaintiff for all her
career opportunities in New York establishes that there is an employer/employee
relationship or an agency relationship at the least.

10

 Case 1i14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed10/15/14 Page 9 of 12
42. As an employer, Defendants owe a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff. They breached this
fiduciary duty by charging Plaintiff for fictitious expenses and failing to pay the Plaintiff

the agreed upon wage of $75,000.
43. Under the contract, Defendants were the exclusive manager for the Plaintiff in New York
and solely responsible for selection of career opportunities, publicity, public relations,

rofessioan
l career. Defendants

advertising and other matters related'to the Plaintiff s p

breached this duty by failing to gain employment opportunities for the Plaintiff.
44. Defendants' breach of the contract was intentional.

COUNT III
(Unjust Enrichment)
45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding

paragraphs.
46. Defendants promised Plaintiff a salary of $75,000 per year in consideration for her
exclusive work with TMV1.
47. The Defendants deliberately failed to pay the agreed upon wages.
48. Defendants benefitted from Plaintiff's work on numerous modeling jobs but failed to pay
Plaintiff a just compensation for her work on those modeling jobs.
49. Thus, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched,

COUNT IV
(Violation of FLSA)
50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding
paragraphs.

11

 Case 1:14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 10 of 12
51. As stated above in paragraphs 40 and 41, there was an employer-employee relationship
between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

52. The FLSA (29 U.S.C. g 206) requires that an employee be paid aminimumof$7.
25 per
hour.

53. Defendants, in gross violation ofthe FLSA, paid Plaintiff,am ere amount of$3,880.75
for 3 years.
54. Hence, the Defendants violated the FLSA.
COUNT V

(Fraud)
55. A party has a cause of action for common law &aud'when representation of fact; was
made, the representation was material and the person relied on the representation, the
person making the representation knew of its falsity and the injured party suffered as a
result of the reliance o f such false representation.
56, Defendants, while promising to pay the Plaintiff $75,000 per year, directly took &om her
paycheck bidden costs and overhead fees, intended solely to de&aud the Plaintiff and bypass the laws of the United States.
57. The Defendants promised the Plaintiff a salary of $75,000 without any intent of paying
her but only with the desire to get her modelling services.
58. Defendants thus, fi audulently made misrepresentations and the Plaintiff relied on those
&audulent misrepresentations and provided services to the Defendants.
59. Further, by signing a separate contract with the Plaintiff, without notifying I mnigration

of such a contract, the Defendants have de&auded the Plaintiff by circumventing laws.
60. Defendants' unconscionable acts are fiaudulent and were done intentioMly.

12

 Case 1:14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 11 of 12

COUNT VI
(PrevaiTing Wage and Back Pay of Unpaid Wages)

61, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding
paragraphs.
62. 8 U.S.C. $ 1182 (n), (t) mandate that an employer pay employees either at the actual
wage level paid by the "employer to all other individuals with similar experience and

qua
lificationsfor the specific employtnent in question" or "the prevailing wage level for
the occupational classification in the area of employment," whichever is greater.
63. Defendants attested in the LCA that the Defendants were willing to pay the Plaintiff a
yearlywage of $75,000, above and beyond the prevailing wage setat $45, 490 per year.
However, fi'om 2011-2014, Plaintiff has earned a total mnount of $3,880.75.
64. Defendants have outlandishly underpaid the Plaintiff in gross violation of Immigration
laws whereby Defendants knowingly took advantage of the Plaintiff.
65. As per 8 U.S.C. ( 1182(n), (t), when an employer, after notice and hearing, is found not
to have paid wages at the wage level specified in the attestation, the employer shall be
orderedto provide payment of such amounts ofback pay. As such, Defendants owe the

Plaintif
fa totalof $225,000 in back pay.
66. Defendants' failure to comply with the Immigration laws caused the Plaintiff to suffer
insurmountable loss of wages.
67. Defendants' failure to comply with the Inunigration laws was willful.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf ofherself and the Class, respectfully request that this
Court grant the following relief:

13

 Case 1:14-cv-08307-AT Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 12 of 12
A. Allow this action to proceed as a class action under CPLR Article 9 for all claims alleged,
designate Plaintiff as the representative of the class and the undersigned counsel as
counsel for the class;
B. Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff and each member of the
Class, in the amount of their individual unpaid wages, actual and compensatory datnages,
and pre-and post-judgment interest as allowed by law and enjoin Defendants from future

violations;
C. Award Plaintiff the attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this litigation; and
D. Grant Plaintiffs such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: October 2, 2014
Ozone Park, New York

M. Gehi
Gehi & Associates
104-05 Liberty Avenue
Ozone Park, NY 11417

14