Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—N.D.N.Y.: Rule 68 offer of judgment to settle suit over wage claims struck down, (Jun 17, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The court found that the employee altered the terms of the offer, which he had no authority to do.

A federal district court in New York has struck an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that purportedly settled wage claims between employees and an ambulance service company. The court concluded that the offer of judgment was ambiguous and, hence, there was no meeting of the minds. Accordingly, the court found the offer of judgment invalid (Desso v. Parkland Ambulance Service, Inc., No. 1:25-CV-328 (MAD/PJE) (N.D.N.Y. June 11, 2026)).

The plaintiff in this case worked as a patient care employe and alleged that his employer failed to pay workers proper overtime wages.

Overtime claims. On February 21, 2025, an employee filed a class and collective action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated to recover alleged unpaid wages, untimely wages, and other damages from Parkland Ambulance Services, Inc. According to the employee, the employer allegedly rounded his and other employees’ hours to the nearest quarter hour, while simultaneously prohibiting them from “clocking in” more than 7.5 minutes before their scheduled shift start time and “clocking out” more than 7.5 minutes after their scheduled shift end time. Additionally, the employer allegedly paid the employee and others non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials that it failed to include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes.

Offer of judgment. Subsequently, the employer served the employee with an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the employee purported to accept on February 26, 2026. The offer of judgment stated that, pursuant to Rule 68, the company offered to allow the employee, “individually and for others similarly situated,” to take a judgment against the employer for a total sum of $250,000, inclusive of reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs incurred as of the date of this offer, for the employee’s claims.

Altered terms. On March 6, the employer requested that the court schedule a phone conference to discuss a disagreement between the parties regarding the scope of the offer of judgment. In the letter request, the employer also represented that the offer of judgment was intended to bring about a class-wide resolution of the claims brought by the employee and others similarly situated, but the Notice of Acceptance filed by the employee attempted to alter the terms of the offer of judgment by changing the case caption and identifying only the employee in his individual capacity as the acceptor.

The offer of judgment listed the plaintiff as the employee “Individually and For Others Similarly Situated," but the caption of the Acceptance stated that the plaintiff was only the employee. In response, the employee filed a letter, which asserted that judgment in the amount of $250,000 must be entered solely in favor of the employee individually, as no other class member had joined the case by filing a notice of consent.

The employer urged the court to refuse to enter judgment and strike the Acceptance, arguing that, because the employee altered the terms of the offer, there was no meeting of the minds. The employee contended that the acceptance was valid, and judgment should be entered because no other class members had joined the action and the employee could only accept the offer of judgment on his own behalf.

Meeting of the minds. Second Circuit precedent makes clear that a Rule 68 offer is only valid if there is a “meeting of the minds” as understood under common law contract principles. Indeed, said the court, the plain purpose of Rule 68 is to encourage settlement and avoid litigation. The Rule prompts both parties to a suit to evaluate the risks and costs of litigation, and to balance them against the likelihood of success upon trial on the merits.

With respect to a suit seeking money damages, the process requires that the plaintiff, who can total his damages and the costs already incurred, be able to compare that sum to the amount offered. Thus, Rule 68 offers must provide a clear baseline from which plaintiffs may evaluate the merits of their case relative to the value of the offer. Ultimately, the Rule 68 process does not work if the dollar amount offered is not clear, the Second Circuit has stated.

Offer of judgment was ambiguous. Here, the court found that no judgment could be entered because the offer of judgment was ambiguous and the circumstances demonstrated that there was no meeting of the minds. The employee was correct that the employer had no power to offer a class settlement to a non-existent class. However, the fact that the employer attempted to make an offer that was a legal and factual impossibility does not mean that a Rule 68 contract was somehow validly formed on the employee’s terms, said the court. The employee had no authority to unilaterally change the terms of the offer of judgment (nor to change the case caption to fit his one-sided interpretation).

The employee contended that the fact that the filing contained an error in the caption was of no moment. In support of this assertion, the employee cited a decision of the Eastern District of New York which noted that the Second Circuit “often makes [case caption] corrections sua sponte, and without citation to any specific Rule or other authority.” Although the Second Circuit may have the ability to unilaterally change case captions, the employee cited to no authority which vests him with such power, said the court.

Tactical maneuver. Rejecting the employee’s characterization that the changed caption in the Acceptance was an “error,” the court found the circumstances indicated a tactical maneuver by the employee’s counsel aimed at capitalizing on defense counsel's strategic misstep of offering a class-wide Rule 68 offer before a class was formed. Indeed, the history of the parties' settlement negotiations seemed to indicate that the employee’s counsel likely knew that the offer of judgment contemplated a class-wide settlement (even if the employer was mistaken regarding its ability to resolve the matter with regard to the various potential class members). According to the employer, settlement of this matter had only been discussed on a class-wide basis.

Implausible. Moreover, the employee’s assertion that the employer intended to offer $250,000 to resolve his individual wage claims was simply implausible, said the court. The employee was compensated $19.50 per hour for his work as an EMT and paramedic. The complaint stated that he was employed from approximately July 2021 through October 2024, working 48 hours per week.

Assuming he worked 48 hours during each of these 174 weeks, with no time off, and was paid at 1.5 times his hourly rate of $19.50 for 8 hours of overtime per week, the employee would have earned $176,436 during the entire time he was employed. It is improbable that the employer intended to settle the employee’s individual claims for nearly $75,000 more than the employee ever possibly earned during his term of employment, the court observed. Tellingly absent was any allegation that the employee actually expected to individually recover $250,000 in this matter.

Unclear terms. The employer and employee “had drastically different interpretations” of who the offer of judgment was intended to bind. The employer counsel's use of the singular “Plaintiff” to define the employee “Individually and For Others Similarly Situated” in the Offer of Judgment made the terms of the offer unclear. For these reasons, the court concluded that the offer of judgment was ambiguous and, therefore, the parties never reached an agreement regarding who was to take judgment against the employer.

Accordingly, the court found the offer of judgment invalid. The court therefore ordered that the notice of acceptance with offer of judgment to be stricken and referred the matter to a magistrate judge for further proceedings.

The case is No. 1:25-CV-238 (MAD/PJE).

Judge: D’Agostino, M.

Attorneys: Andrew Dunlap (Josephson Dunlap) for Evan Desso. Michael J. Sciotti (Barclay Damon) for Parkland Ambulance Service, Inc.

Companies: Parkland Ambulance Service, Inc.

Cases: WageHour ClassActions Overtime ContractClaims Procedure NewYorkNews