Gill v. Moody Mart 2 Inc.,Et al. Civil Case No.: 19-cv-02171-JMA-AKT

New Employment Law Action filed in the Eastern District of New York

Gill v. Moody Mart 2 Inc., and HO 110 Inc., and Hill Enterprise Inc., and Tariq Mahmud, individually, Civil Case No.: 19-cv-02171-JMA-AKT

On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff Gill filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York against MOODY MART 2 INC. (“Moody Mart”), HO 110 INC. (“HO 110”), HILL ENTERPRISE INC. (“Hill Enterprise,” and together with Moody Mart and HO 110, as “the Company”), and TARIQ MAHMUD, an individual, (together, with the Company, as “Defendants”), alleges upon knowledge as to himself and his own actions, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

Plaintiff worked for Defendants – – three corporations that together operate as a single enterprise of not least three Long Island convenience stores with gas stations and their Chief Executive Officer – – at each of Defendants’ locations, from on or about November 26, 2015, until November 29, 2017, as a misclassified manager. Throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, six days per week, from 8:00 a.m. until approximately 1:00 p.m. at Moody Mart, from approximately 1:30 p.m. until approximately 5:30 p.m. at HO 110, and from approximately 6:00 p.m. until anywhere between 8:00 to 10:00 p.m. at Hill Enterprise, without a scheduled or uninterrupted break each day, for a total of between, on the low end, seventy-two, and on the high end, eighty-four hours per week. Defendants paid Plaintiff on a weekly basis by a combination of check and cash, by which method Defendants intended to disguise that Plaintiff was working in excess of forty hours per week in total. Indeed, for each pay period, Defendants issued Plaintiff separate checks from Moody Mart and HO 110 for the hours he worked at those locations and then paid him in cash for the hours he worked at Hill Enterprise.

Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Specifically, Defendants required Plaintiff to work more than forty hours per week but paid him on an hourly rather than salaried basis for all hours that he worked per week, including those in excess of forty. Thus, Defendants intentionally failed to compensate Plaintiff at his overtime rate of time and one-half his regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff worked per week in excess of forty. Additionally, in further violation of the NYLL and the N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs., throughout his employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff a spread of hours premium when his shift exceeded ten hours in a day from beginning to end or when he worked a split-shift.

If any individual is or has previously been an employee of the Defendants named in the lawsuit and/or has information that may be relevant to this case, please contact Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. as soon as possible through one of our websites, www.employmentlawyernewyork.com or www.516abogado.com, or by phoe: (516) 248–5550, (516) ABOGADO, or (212) 679–5000.