MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Sandra Heras (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. (“FLSA”), and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) against Defendants Metropolitan Learning Institute (“MLI”) and Boris Davidoff (“Davidoff,” and together with MLI, “Defendants”). On May 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. See, Am. Compl., Docket (“Dkt.”) Entry No. 3. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or alternatively, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(d). See, Notice of Mot. to Dismiss Compl., Dkt. Entry No. 11; Defs.’ Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (“Def. Mem.”), Dkt. Entry No. 11-1. Plaintiff opposes the motion. See, Pl.’s Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl. Opp’n”), Dkt. Entry No. 16; Decl. of Jacob Aronauer (“Aronauer Decl.”), Dkt. Entry No. 17; Decl. of Sandra Heras (“Heras Decl.”), Dkt. Entry No. 18. Defendants have replied. See, Def. Metropolitan Learning Institute, Inc. and Boris Davidoff’s Mem. of Law in Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n (“Def. Reply”), Dkt. Entry No. 19. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is construed as a motion to dismiss rather than a motion for summary judgment and is denied in its entirety. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the Amended Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of this decision. See, DeJesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 726 F.3d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 2013). I. Relevant Facts MLI is a private, non-profit pedagogical organization with campuses in Queens and Brooklyn. Am. Compl. at 24. Davidoff is the President and Chief Executive Officer of MLI. Id. at 26. Plaintiff was employed by MLI as a recruiter from August 2018 through April 2019. Id. at 30. Her duties included recruiting potential students to enroll at MLI. Id. at 31. To do so, she would “go to a location, stand on the street and try to convince individuals to take classes at MLI.” Id. If an individual was interested in taking a course at MLI, she would make an appointment with the individual to discuss the possibility of enrollment. Id. at 32. She also would create electronic and physical files relating to students’ enrollment using information the students would provide to her, such as their relevant identification, high school diploma, and taxes for the previous two years. Id. at
33-34. Once a student was enrolled and accepted to MLI, she would send the respective file to MLI’s “FAFSA office.” Id. at 35. Subsequently, she would continue to interact with students regarding their “initiation” to MLI. Id. at 36. From August 2018 to mid-April 2019, Plaintiff’s work hours were from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., without a meal break. Id. at 43. About one day per week, or four times per month, she would have to work past 6 p.m., until approximately 8 p.m. Id. at 44. Plaintiff alleges that she “virtually always” and “regularly” worked more than 40 hours per week, but “was not paid time and one half” to do so. Id. at
