Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—E.D.N.Y.: Liquidated damages imposed on employer that failed to record aides’ actual hours, (Feb 24, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employer failed to take active steps to learn about or comply with its FLSA recordkeeping and overtime obligations for live-in aides.

Following a bench trial on the sole issue of the imposition of liquidated damages, a federal district court in New York determined that liquidated damages would not be reduced where an employer had not demonstrated good faith and that it was objectively reasonable to believe that it was not violating FLSA’s requirement with respect to live-in aides. The employer failed to keep records of the aides’ actual hours worked and to pay the employees overtime wages for work performed during meal and sleep breaks. Further, the record failed to show that the employer had any objectively reasonable grounds for believing that it was in compliance with the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping requirements relating to live-in aide employees at any time during the relevant period (Chavez-DeRemer v. Sarene Services, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-3273 (NJC) (ST) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2026)).

“Live-in” aides. The Secretary of Labor brought this action to enforce the FLSA’s overtime, recordkeeping, and anti-retaliation provisions against the employer, a company that provides home health services. The suit was brought on behalf of more than 500 employees that the employer formerly employed as home health aides. The employees worked as “live-in” aides and worked 24-hour shifts in the homes of the employer’s patients.

The Secretary filed this action on July 21, 2020, alleging that the employer failed to keep accurate time records and to pay hundreds of former live-in aide employees minimum and overtime wages in violation of various provisions of the FLSA.

FLSA claims. On April 5, 2025, after a four-week trial, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Secretary, finding the employer liable for violating the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping provisions from March 19, 2017 through December 31, 2020, and for violating the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provisions. On September 4, 2025, the court held a one-day bench trial regarding whether the imposition of liquidated damages should be reduced under 29 U.S.C. § 260 due to any good faith of the employer.

“Job Description” forms. The steps that the employer did take, including haphazard and confusing use of “Job Description” forms to purportedly obtain the employee’s agreement that the employer would deduct eleven hours of time during each 24-hour shift as non-compensable, were not taken in good faith. According to the employer, it used the unsigned Job Description to educate live-in aides that they were entitled to overtime pay if they miss their sleep or meal breaks and that, “if they provide care for their patients beyond 13 hours in a 24-hour period, they must immediately notify the Nursing Supervisor to receive approval for overtime pay....” However, the court noted that the employer failed to disclose this document during discovery and it failed to provide any satisfactory explanation why it failed to produce a document that was central to its defenses, but instead blamed its prior counsel. Such conduct smacked of bad faith.

The employer never made a single overtime payment to any of its more than 500 live-in aides for an interruption to a meal or sleep break from March 19, 2017 through December 31, 2020. Moreover, the employer maintained inadequate records of the actual hours worked by live-in aides and failed to investigate when live-in aides reported interruptions to their sleep and meal breaks.

Interruptions to meal and sleep breaks. Live-in aides credibly testified that they reported to supervisors and management that they were experiencing interruptions to meal and sleep breaks through their aide activity sheets, and various exchange systems, as well as phone calls to nursing supervisors or to an after-hours call line, but that the employer ignored these reports.

The record was replete with evidence showing that the employer’s recordkeeping systems did not adequately capture the hours worked by live-in aides. Further, the employer failed to offer any documentary evidence or witness testimony showing that its nursing or payroll departments investigated a single report by a live-in aide of an interruption to a sleep or meal break at any time during the relevant period.

Accordingly, the court found that, during the relevant period, the employer did not have an actual practice of investigating live-in aides’ reports of interruptions to their sleep and meal breaks and paying overtime compensation for those interruptions.

Compliance with FLSA requirements. The evidentiary record showed that the employer’s conduct and omissions causing its failure to keep records of live-in aides’ actual hours worked and to pay the employees overtime wages for work performed during meal and sleep breaks were not in good faith. Not only did the employer fail to take active steps to learn about its FLSA recordkeeping and overtime obligations for live-in aide employees, it also failed to take active steps to comply with those requirements.

Good faith. Following the trial, the court determined that the imposition of liquidated damages will not be reduced pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 260. Securing such a reduction requires demonstrating the employer’s good faith and that it was objectively reasonable for the employer to believe that it was not violating the FLSA’s requirements with respect to the live-in aide employees. In this instance, neither was true.

The record shows that the employer failed to take sufficient steps to learn about the FLSA’s requirements with respect to its live-in aide employees. Moreover, in part because it failed to take active steps to learn the FLSA’s requirements relating to live-in aides, the employer also failed to move to comply with those legal requirements. Accordingly, the employer failed to demonstrate the subjective good faith required for a reduction of liquidated damages under Section 260.

Reasonable belief. Moreover, it was objectively unreasonable for the employer to believe that it was complying with the FLSA’s requirements in light of its obviously deficient and confusing recordkeeping practices, failure to seek legal guidance, and failure to actually investigate live-in aides’ reports of work performed during meal and sleep breaks. Indeed, out of a workforce of more than 500 people, the employer did not pay a single live-in aide overtime wages on even one occasion for an interrupted meal or sleep break during the nearly four-year-long period at issue in this action.

An employer fails to show objective reasonableness when it “recklessly disregarded the possibility that [it was] violating the FLSA.” Here, the employer’s conduct was not objectively reasonable for three reasons. First, the employer emphasized the importance that live-in aides meet patient needs at all times without using objectively reasonable systems for capturing the hours worked by these workers, including work interruptions to sleep and meal breaks. Second, the employer’s failure to implement any procedures for investigating reports by live-in aides of work performed during sleep and meal breaks to ensure live-in aides were compensated for such work during the relevant period was objectively unreasonable. Third, the employer’s failure to seek legal guidance to ensure that its practices were FLSA-compliant was objectively unreasonable.

Because the employer’s timekeeping policies did not allow for the complete and accurate recording of all time worked, it failed to implement any procedures for investigating reports by live-in aides of work performed during sleep and meal breaks to ensure proper compensation for compensable work, and it failed to seek legal guidance to ascertain the law and take steps to ensure that its practices were FLSA-compliant at any time during the entire relevant period, the record failed to show that the employer had any objectively reasonable grounds for believing that it was in compliance with the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping requirements relating to their live-in aide employees at any time during the relevant period.

The case is No. 2:20-cv-3273 (NJC) (ST).

Judge: Choudhury, N.

Attorneys: Hollis Virginia Pfitsch, U.S. Department of Labor, for Lori Chavez-Deremer. Lisa Marie Griffith (Littler Mendelson) for Sarene Services, Inc.

Companies: Sarene Services, Inc.

Companies: United States Department of Labor; Sarene Services, Inc.; Serene Home Nursing Agency

Cases: RemediesDamages WageHour MinimumWage Overtime AgencyNews NewYorkNews