(See Memo of Law at 15.) Because the FLSA and NYLL retaliation provisions are “‘nearly identical', ” claims under both statutes are analyzed using the same framework. Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 628 F.Supp.2d 447, 471 n.18 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotations omitted); see also Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mechanical Corp., No. 15-CV-4507 (AJN), 2016 WL 1268274, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016).
Without more, that is insufficient. See, e.g., Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp, No. 15-CV-4507 (AJN), 2016 WL 1268274, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) (noting that "[c]ourts in this district have . . . permitted" allegations "upon information and belief" as to comparators "if plaintiffs provide sufficient identifying details about similarly situated individuals" (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Barrett v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., 39 F. Supp. 3d 407, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (permitting plaintiffs to allege that they were paid less than their male coworkers only "upon information on belief" because each plaintiff also "(1) state[d] the amount of her base salary, (2) identifie[d] at least one male comparator, and (3) allege[d] that the comparator received a higher base salary").
As noted above, it is now clear in this Circuit that internal complaints can constitute protected activity under the anti-retaliation provisions of § 215(a)(3). Therefore, this Court is bound by the "clear weight of authority in this circuit," beginning with Greathouse. See, e.g., Cabrera v. CBS Corp., 17-CV-6011, 2018 WL 1225260, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2018) ("After Greathouse, oral complaints may constitute protected activity for purposes of a § 215(a)(3) retaliation claim."); Manswell v. Heavenly Miracle Acad. Servs., Inc., No. 14-CV-7114, 2017 WL 9487194, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2017) ("Complaining to a supervisor, whether formally or informally, is considered protected activity, as is filing a complaint with the EEOC."), report and recommendation adopted, No. 14-CV-7114, 2017 WL 4075180 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2017); 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3); Santos, 2017 WL 9256490, at *3; Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp, 15-CV-4507, 2016 WL 1268274, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) ("As a result, Defendants' argument that internal complaints cannot, as a matter of law, form the basis for a retaliation claim is incorrect."). The Court notes that various Plaintiffs testified during their depositions that they and others complained to Operations Supervisor Tommy McEvilly and Louis Vecchia throughout their employment, often on a weekly basis, of the ongoing failure to pay Plaintiffs their full wages, including overtime wages.