Rigopoulos v. Kervan
| Decision Date | 29 September 1942 |
| Parties | RIGOPOULOS et al. v. KERVAN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Charles R. Katz, of New York City, for plaintiffs.
Alger, Peck, Andrew & Rohlfs, of New York City, for defendant.
Plaintiffs move to strike from the answer two affirmative defenses upon the ground that they fail to allege facts sufficient to constitute defenses to this action.
This is an action under § 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S. C.A. §§ 201-219, to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages for failure to pay such wages and reasonable attorneys fees. The defendant denies that the plaintiffs were employed in excess of the hours prescribed in the statute or that any overtime wages or liquidated damages are due them.
An attempt is made in the two defenses in question to plead an accord and satisfaction. In one it is alleged that six of the plaintiffs were employed by the defendant on or about October 24, 1938; that the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor commenced an action on behalf of these and all other employees for an injunction restraining the defendant from violating the Fair Labor Standards Act; that during the course of such action the defendant agreed to pay to these six employees the differences between the wages actually paid to them for the period from October 24, 1938, to January 29, 1941, and the wages which said employees should have been paid under the Act; that a consent judgment was entered to that effect; and that the six plaintiffs accepted such payments in full satisfaction of their respective claims and signed receipts to that effect. The second defense alleges that two of the plaintiffs were not included in the aforesaid consent judgment but that nevertheless they were also paid the difference in wages.
No facts are pleaded for the purpose of showing that there was an honest dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to whether the plaintiffs did work overtime within the purview of the Fair Labor Standards Act, or as to the amount of such overtime. In the absence of such allegations, the defense of accord and satisfaction is insufficient. Campbell v. Mandel Auto Parts Corp., Sup., 31 N.Y. S.2d 656, affirmed 264 App.Div. 701, 34 N.Y. S.2d 405. On the contrary, the facts pleaded tend to show that there was no such dispute. In paragraph 21 defendant alleges that in the action instituted by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, he agreed to pay the plaintiffs the amounts which should have been paid under the Act. Thus, the defendant admitted that the plaintiffs had worked overtime and admitted that for such overtime work they should have been paid the amounts set opposite their names.
The plain and simple issue presented here by the affirmative defense sought to be struck, is whether or not the employer having paid plaintiffs the overtime pay due them may be relieved from the payment of the equal amount as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cannon v. Miller
...v. South, 1 Cir., 140 F.2d 439; Guess v. Montague, 4 Cir., 140 F.2d 500; Travis v. Ray, D.C.Ky., 41 F.Supp. 6; Rigopoulos v. Kervan, D.C.N.Y., 47 F.Supp. 576; Bailey v. Karolyna Co., Ltd., D.C.N.Y., 50 142; Garrity v. Gagold Corporation, 180 Misc. 120, 42 N.Y.S.2d 257; Walsh v. 515 Madison ......
-
Greenberg v. Arsenal Bldg. Corporation
...a failure to comply with the Act. Missel case, supra, 316 U.S. at page 583, 62 S.Ct. at page 1222, 86 L.Ed. 1682; Rigopoulos et al. v. Kervan, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 576, 577. Besides, there is considerable doubt, in the light of the record, as to whether any loss in rentals was occasioned by the......
-
Guess v. Montague
...& Coke Co. v. Lofton, 10 Cir., 136 F.2d 359, decided May 27, 1943; Abroe v. Lindsay Bros. Co., 211 Minn. 136, 300 N.W. 457; Rigopoulos v. Kervan, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 576; Philpot v. Standard Oil Co., D.C.N.D.Ohio, 53 F. Supp. As we have seen, the policy of the law forbids settlement for less t......
-
Runyan v. National Cash Register Corp.
...disputes over factual issues--for which compromises or settlements are valid and binding. 51 F.Supp. at 904-05; accord Rigopoulos v. Kervan, 47 F.Supp. 576 (S.D.N.Y.1942) (settlement not bar to recovery of liquidated damages absent allegation that an honest dispute existed respecting whethe......