 Defendants treated Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs similarly in that Plaintiff and  all FLSA Plaintiffs: (1) performed similar tasks, as described in the “Background Facts” section  below; (2) were subject to the same laws and regulations; (3) were paid in the same or similar  manner; (4) were required to work in excess of forty hours in a workweek; and (5) were not paid  the required one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked per  workweek in excess of forty.    At all relevant times, Defendants are and have been aware of the requirements to  pay Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs at an amount equal to the rate of one and one-half times their  respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked each workweek above forty, yet they  purposefully and willfully chose, and choose, not to do so.    Thus, all FLSA Plaintiffs are victims of Defendants’ pervasive practice of willfully  refusing to pay their employees overtime compensation for all hours worked per workweek above  forty, in violation of the FLSA.   In November 2009, Defendant Tom Rohlman, on behalf of Pine Management, hired  Plaintiff to work for Defendants as a maintenance worker, porter, and superintendent.  Plaintiff  worked for Defendants in that capacity until his employment ended on August 12, 2015.    At all times during Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants, Pine  Management’s vice-presidents, brothers Daniel and Jason Rohlman, oversaw and controlled  Plaintiff’s work assignments, work hours, and the calculation and payment of his wages.    5 hours of that work per week.    Plaintiff’s duties as a maintenance worker consisted of plastering, painting, garbage  removal, cleaning windows, mopping, sweeping, and repairing apartment units and common areas  within Defendants’ buildings.     During the entire period of Plaintiff’s employment, the Defendants required  Plaintiff to reside, and Plaintiff did reside, in Defendants’ building located at 211 West 80th Street,  Apt. 1-C, New York, New York.  Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants in that building, as  well as in Defendants’ buildings located at 205, 207 and 209 West 80th Street, New York, New  York.    During the calendar years 2013-2015, up until and including August 12, 2015, the  Defendants required Plaintiff to perform his regular maintenance work duties five days per week,  Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., without being permitted a scheduled or  uninterrupted break each day, totaling 42.5 hours per week.      Additionally, on the weekends, Defendants required Plaintiff to spend additional  hours working as a porter and superintendent at the four buildings.    In total, in addition to his 42.5 hours per week spent as a maintenance worker,  Plaintiff worked between 19.25 hours and twenty-five hours per week in his role as a porter and  superintendent.    Thus, throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and  Plaintiff did work, a total of at least 61.75 hours per week and sometimes as many as 67.5 hours  per week.       During at least the three-year period pre-dating the commencement of this action  up until his last day of work, Defendants paid Plaintiff an hourly rate, for all hours that he spent  fulfilling his maintenance worker responsibilities as follows: $15.00 per hour through December  2014; and $16.00 per hour from January 2015 through the end of his employment on August 12,  2015.  During that same time period, Defendants paid Plaintiff an additional $300 per week to  cover his superintendent/porter responsibilities, which at his hourly rate of $16, operated to cover    By way of example only, during the workweek of January 26 through February 2,  2015, Plaintiff worked the following regular schedule as a maintenance worker:   Monday, January 26, 2015: 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.   Tuesday, January 27, 2015: 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.  Wednesday, January 28, 2015: 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.   Thursday, January 29, 2015: 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.  Friday, January 30, 2015: 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.  Saturday, January 31, 2015: off  Sunday, February 2, 2015: off  Plaintiff also, during that same week, worked a total of 19.25 hours performing his porter and  superintendent duties, which consisted of 2.25 hours of work on each weekday and four hours of  work on each weekend day.  Thus, adding up the hours for this representative workweek, Plaintiff  worked 61.75 hours for the week.  During this week, Defendant paid Plaintiff at the rate of $16.00  per hour for 61.25 hours worked and nothing for .5 hours of work, and thus not at the rate of time  and one-half his straight-time rate, or $24 per hour, for all hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of  forty.    Defendants employed several FLSA Plaintiffs at their various buildings throughout  Manhattan and Brooklyn, and treated Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs in the manner described  herein.    Defendants acted in the manner described herein so as to maximize their profits  while minimizing their labor costs and overhead.    Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every  allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.    29 U.S.C. § 207(a) requires employers to compensate their employees at a rate not  less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked exceeding forty in a  workweek.      As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the FLSA,  while Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are employees within the meaning of the FLSA.    As also described above, Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty  hours per week, yet Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs in accordance  with the FLSA’s overtime provisions.     Defendants willfully violated the FLSA.    Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked per  week in excess of forty at the rate of one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay.     Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are also entitled to liquidated damages and attorneys’  fees for Defendants’ violation of the FLSA’s overtime provisions.  Unpaid Overtime under the FLSA  