Allegations of unpaid wages, improper tip retention, and age discrimination have been brought against a group of Korean-themed restaurants and their owners by a former employee seeking to represent a class of current and former workers. The complaint was filed on March 24, 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Jesus Borja against Anytime Soju Inc., Anytime Karaoke Inc., 112 West Inc., 34 SIS Inc., K2 YH Inc., 1550 Chois Inc., 2023 C2 Inc., 218 Chois Inc., Sungkyu Choi (also known as Sammy Choi), Younghoon Choi (also known as Alex Choi), and Seungeun Jeong (also known as Rachel Jeong).
According to the filing, the plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated employees are owed unpaid overtime premiums due to what is described as an improper fixed salary compensation system. The lawsuit also alleges that tips were unlawfully retained by management rather than being properly distributed among eligible staff. The legal action seeks recovery under multiple statutes: the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL), New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
The complaint outlines that the defendants operate a network of venues collectively referred to as “Anytime Hospitality,” which includes restaurants, karaoke lounges, pool bars, and catering services across Manhattan and New Jersey. Locations named in the document include Anytime Kitchen, Anytime Karaoke, Anytime Bar & Billiards, Anytime Street St. Marks, The Spot, Jaws Topokki in Palisades Park and Closter in New Jersey, as well as Mat Time by Anytime catering service.
The plaintiff describes his employment beginning around October 2021 at Anytime Kitchen in Manhattan where he worked first as a busser before being promoted to server. He states that he regularly worked six days per week with shifts ranging from nine to ten hours each day—often exceeding scheduled hours—and sometimes was required to work a seventh day. Compensation was allegedly provided at a fixed weekly or daily rate regardless of actual hours worked; for example, $1,000 per week for six days or $100 for an additional seventh day shift.
Borja asserts that neither he nor other employees received overtime pay at one-and-a-half times their regular rate for hours worked over forty per week. He further alleges that paystubs were not provided with cash or check payments throughout his employment period—making it difficult to verify proper wage or tip distribution. The complaint claims this practice extended to other workers at the defendant’s establishments.
The suit also raises concerns about tip pooling practices at these venues. According to Borja’s statement in the filing: “Defendants allowed their managers…to include themselves in the tip pool,” resulting in managers receiving “excessively large portions of the tips.” He cites specific incidents where his observed tips did not match amounts received: “During the last week of Plaintiff’s employment…Plaintiff earned approximately $900.00 in tips across just two workdays,” but only received $230 total—including both wages and tips—for that week.
Additionally, Borja accuses defendants of failing to provide legally required wage notices or accurate wage statements under both New York’s Wage Theft Protection Act (WTPA) and similar provisions under New Jersey law. He argues this lack of documentation impaired employees’ ability to recognize wage violations or contest pay rates.
Beyond wage issues, Borja claims he was subjected to age-based discrimination starting around June 2025 when his schedule was reduced after requesting assistance during busy shifts—a reduction he says resulted in lost earnings exceeding seventy percent compared to prior weeks. He alleges management told him directly: “I need you to work less hours so I can give more hours to someone else who I am training to replace you.” On his final day of employment in September 2025, Borja reports being told by his manager: “Sorry, but the owners informed me that you’re too old to continue working.”
The legal arguments presented cite violations under federal law (FLSA) for failure to pay overtime premiums and retain proper records; state laws for unpaid minimum wages; spread-of-hours premiums; improper tip retention; failure to provide required notices; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; compensatory damages; punitive damages; emotional distress damages; attorneys’ fees; costs; injunctive relief ordering cessation of discriminatory practices; designation of class representatives; class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; pre-judgment interest; post-judgment interest; back pay; front pay; and any further relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case is represented by attorneys C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig from Lee Litigation Group PLLC based in New York City. The case number is 1:26-cv-02382.
Source: 126cv2382_Jesus_Borja_v_Anytime_Soju_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
