Kovalev v. A.G. Consulting Engineering, P.C.

Background

Ivan Kovalev and Mintiwab Hill sued their former employer, A.G. Consulting Engineering, P.C. (AGC), alleging that AGC misclassified them and other employees as exempt from overtime requirements. They asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a collective action and under the New York Labor Law (NYLL) as a Rule 23 class action. Kovalev also asserted individual retaliation claims under both laws.

The court had previously allowed the plaintiffs to send notices to potential FLSA collective members based on the relatively modest showing required at that preliminary stage. AGC sent notices to 62 current and former field employees, and ten people opted in. The plaintiffs then renewed their unopposed motion for Rule 23 class certification and approval of a proposed settlement. The agreement provided for a total payment of $230,000, including individual payments, attorneys’ fees and costs, service awards, and settlement-administration costs.

Class-Certification Analysis

The court denied the motion because the plaintiffs did not prove that the proposed class satisfied Rule 23. First, the proposed class consisted of the named plaintiffs, the opt-in plaintiffs, and all current and former “field employees” employed by AGC during the specified period. The plaintiffs did not define “field employees” or provide evidence establishing objective boundaries for membership in that group. The employee-handbook excerpt in the record did not define the term, and the plaintiffs’ pay records did not identify Kovalev or Hill as field employees.

Second, the court found that the plaintiffs had not shown commonality, typicality, or predominance. Those requirements generally call for common legal or factual questions and representative claims that resemble those of the class, with common issues outweighing individual ones. The evidence showed that Hill was a mechanical, electrical, and plumbing superintendent while Kovalev was an electrical inspector. The plaintiffs did not provide evidence that other field employees had materially similar duties, skills, authority, discretion, or exemption-related responsibilities.

The court emphasized that evidence sufficient for preliminary FLSA collective notice was not enough to satisfy the more demanding Rule 23 standard. The plaintiffs submitted no declarations from opt-in plaintiffs and no other evidence showing that the proposed class members performed similar work or were similarly misclassified. The court stated that a narrower class of field inspectors might address some concerns, but it was unclear whether Hill would fall within that group or whether such a class would satisfy the numerical requirement for certification.

Settlement Analysis

Because the proposed class did not satisfy Rule 23, the court could not grant preliminary approval of the class settlement and did not evaluate whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23. It likewise did not conduct the required fairness review of the FLSA settlement.

The court nevertheless identified a separate problem with the proposed agreement. The agreement required Kovalev and Hill to release AGC from “any and all claims” under federal, state, and local law, including claims under statutes such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court stated that this release was plainly too broad as to Hill, who asserted only wage-and-hour claims, and might also be too broad as to Kovalev, who additionally asserted FLSA and NYLL retaliation claims.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and settlement approval. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and ordered the parties to file a joint letter by September 2, 2025, explaining how they proposed to proceed. The order did not dismiss the action and did not decide whether AGC violated the FLSA or NYLL.