Geskina v. Admore Air Conditioning Corp.
1:16-cv-03096
S.D.N.Y.May 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Larisa Geskina, a former bookkeeper for Admore Air Conditioning, sued under the FLSA and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime and payroll-records violations, alleging ~880 overtime hours unpaid and roughly $67,000 in unpaid overtime (exclusive of liquidated damages).
- Defendants asserted Geskina was an exempt employee and thus owed no overtime.
- Parties reached a pre-discovery settlement for $40,000 total: $900 for counsel costs, $13,332 (≈34%) for attorneys’ fees, and $25,768 to plaintiff.
- The court initially rejected the filing because the settlement amount was redacted; parties refiled unredacted agreement.
- Magistrate Judge Pitman evaluated fairness under Wolinsky factors and related FLSA settlement standards and approved the settlement, striking the confidentiality provision but leaving the agreement otherwise intact.
- The action was dismissed with prejudice; the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fairness of settlement amount | Settlement reasonably compensates a large portion of alleged overtime and avoids litigation risks | Plaintiff is exempt; no overtime liability, so settlement overstates recovery | Approved: settlement (~59.7% of alleged overtime) is a reasonable compromise given litigation risk |
| Confidentiality clause | N/A (parties included clause initially) | N/A | Struck: confidentiality provision barred as inconsistent with FLSA remedial purposes |
| Attorneys’ fees (≈34%) | Contingent one-third fee is customary and agreed | N/A | Approved: ~34% (one-third typical in Circuit) is reasonable |
| General release and non-disparagement provisions | Needed for closure; carve-outs for truthful statements and workers’ comp allowed | N/A | Approved: mutual release and non-disparagement acceptable with carve-outs |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (FLSA settlements require court approval when resolving bona fide disputes)
- Reiseck v. Universal Commc'ns of Miami, Inc., 591 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2010) (exemption analysis depends on employee duties, not title)
- Pippins v. KPMG LLP, 921 F. Supp. 2d 26 (S.D.N.Y.) (bookkeepers generally not exempt under FLSA)
- Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D.N.Y.) (factors for assessing fairness of FLSA settlements)
- Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2015) (court may retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement)