(FMLA – Unlawful Disclosure of Medical Information)  As to Plaintiff Melissa Wolfe  357.  Plaintiff Melissa Wolfe realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation in the  foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   358.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff Melissa Wolfe was “eligible” under the definition of  the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and was entitled to take unpaid leave.   359.  Plaintiff gave notice to Defendant that she intended to take leave for a serious  medical condition.   360.  Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing to treat her medical  information as a confidential record and by disclosing such information to persons with no  lawful privilege to receive such information in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 825.500(g).   361.  Defendant’s actions were intentional and in reckless disregard of the health and well  being of the Plaintiff.  As a result of these acts, the Plaintiff Melissa Wolfe has suffered  grievous, extensive and continuing damages, including, but not limited to, lost wages and  benefits, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and the costs of this action.  (FMLA – Willfulness)  As to Plaintiff Melissa Wolfe  362.  Plaintiff Melissa Wolfe realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation in the  foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   363.  Defendant’s acts complained of herein with regard to the FMLA were willful.   The persons in the New York Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  Although, the precise number of such persons is unknown, and facts upon  which the calculation of that number are presently within the sole control of Defendant,  there are approximately more than 40 members of the New York Class.    The New York Class Representative fairly and adequately protects the interests of  the New York Class and has no interests antagonistic to the class.  The Plaintiffs are  represented by attorneys who are experienced and competent in both class litigation and  employment litigation.    A class 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 federal court  against a corporate defendant.  The damages sustained by individual class members are  small, 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.    Defendant has 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.    Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class.  Plaintiffs and the New York Class  members were subjected to Defendant’s policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols  and plans alleged herein concerning the failure to pay wages at the applicable minimum  wage rate and/or the failure to pay overtime at the applicable rate, the failure to provide  accurate wage notices and statements, the failure to keep adequate records, and the failure to  compensate or reimburse Plaintiffs’ for purchases of music and athletic uniforms made for  Defendant’s benefit.  The job duties of Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class members.    The New York Class Representative intends to send notice to all members of the  New York Class to the extent required by Rule 23.    Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective and New York Class (collectively  “Class Members”) are victims of Defendant’s common policy and plan that violated their  rights under the FLSA and NYLL by denying them wages at the applicable minimum wage  and/or overtime rates.  At all times relevant, Defendant’s unlawful policy and pattern or  practice was willful.     Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to pay each Class Member, including  Plaintiffs any wages for all hours worked during a training period that Defendant required of  each instructor, including Plaintiffs, pursuant to Defendant’s policy and/or practice.     Upon information and belief, pursuant to Defendant’s policy and/or practice, after  the training period, Plaintiffs and each Class Member were/are paid on piece-rate basis, per  class they taught. Generally, classes lasted 45-60 minutes. Defendant also required Plaintiffs  and each Class Member to arrive half-hour before class and stay after class to provide  feedback to customers.     Upon information and belief, following the training period, Plaintiffs and each Class  Member were/are required not only to teach classes, but also perform a variety of other  tasks, such as, but not limited to opening/unlocking the studio, setting up the computer  systems, answering phones, checking in clients at the front desk, preparing for classes,  developing routines, compiling playlists, communicating with customers, attending  meetings, and engaging in marketing on behalf of the company, amounting to an  approximately 15 to 28 hours per week of work in addition to teaching classes, and  Defendant was/is aware of this fact.      Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs and each Class Member was/is required to  incur business expenses for items necessary to perform their job, including during the  training period, and afterward, which included, but is not limited to making purchases of  music and athletic uniforms. Plaintiffs and each Class Member were never compensated or  reimbursed for these expenses.    As a result of Defendant’s piece-rate compensation scheme, Plaintiffs and each Class  Member that was paid under the piece-rate compensation scheme were not paid at the  applicable overtime rate for hours worked over 40 per week.     As part of its regular business practice, Defendant intentionally, willfully, and  repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy that violated the FLSA and  NYLL.  Defendant’s policy and pattern or practice includes but is not limited to:   a.  Willfully failing to keep accurate payroll records of its instructors, including  Plaintiffs and Class Members, as required by the FLSA and NYLL;  b.  Willfully failing to pay its instructors, including Plaintiffs and Class  Members, wages at the applicable minimum wage rate;  c.  Willfully failing to pay its instructors, including Plaintiffs and Class  Members, wages at the applicable overtime rate;  c.  Willfully failing to provide its instructors, including Plaintiffs and Class  Members, accurate wage notices and statements pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law §§  195(1) and (3); and   d.  Willfully failing to compensate or reimburse its instructors, including  Plaintiffs and Class Members, for purchases of music and athletic uniforms for the  benefit of Defendant, pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law § 193.    Defendant is or should have been aware that the FLSA and NYLL required  Defendant to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members at the applicable minimum wage and/or  overtime rates.     Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members wages at the applicable  minimum wage and/or overtime rates, was willful, intentional, and in bad faith.      Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Wage Notice Class with  accurate and proper wage notice pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law § 195(1).    Defendant failed to compensate or reimburse Plaintiffs and members of the Wage  Deduction Class for purchases of music and athletic uniforms Defendant required they make  for the benefit of Defendant, pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law § 195(3).    Defendant’s unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.    At all times relevant, Mr. Montalvo was an employee of Defendant, working under  Defendant’s direct supervision, and was classified as non-exempt from the FLSA and the   At all times relevant, Ms. Wolfe was an employee of Defendant, working under  Defendant’s direct supervision, and was classified as non-exempt from the FLSA and the  ACTION COMPLAINT   JURY TRIAL DEMANDED  Plaintiff Melissa Wolfe (herein “Ms. Wolfe”) and Plaintiff Bryant Montalvo (herein  “Mr. Montalvo”), on behalf of themselves, and a class of all others similarly situated, by and  through their attorneys, Liszka & Gray, LLC, as and for the Complaint in this action against  Defendant Flywheel Sports, Inc. (herein “Defendant”), hereby alleges upon personal  knowledge as to some, and information and belief as to the rest, as follows: 