Brown v. City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-08336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. City of New York, Judge Furman set procedures for reviewing a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and added Christopher Phillips as a plaintiff.
The plaintiffs, including Christopher Phillips after the Clerk's directed addition, and the City of New York as defendant are affected. The order also sets requirements for their proposed settlement and any attorney-fee request.
What happened
In Brown v. City of New York, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court explained that its approval is required for a settlement of Fair Labor Standards Act claims when the case will be dismissed under Rule 41.
The court gave the parties until June 19, 2024, to either submit the proposed settlement with a joint explanation supporting its fairness and reasonableness or consent to have Magistrate Judge Figueredo handle the case and decide whether to approve it. The court also warned that it generally would not approve confidentiality, overly broad release, or certain non-disparagement provisions without case-specific justification.
Judge Furman did not approve the settlement in this order. He directed the Clerk to add Christopher Phillips as a plaintiff based on his consent to join, and otherwise set steps for finalizing and seeking approval of the settlement.
The detailed version
- Brown v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-08336
- Jesse Furman
- May 31, 2024
Background
The parties advised the court by letter that they had reached a settlement in principle. The lawsuit asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing matters including overtime pay, and the New York Labor Law. The court noted that an employer violating the overtime-pay requirement may owe unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount as additional damages.
Settlement-Approval Procedures
The court explained that judicial approval is required for an FLSA settlement when dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is contemplated. The order assumed that the parties were pursuing dismissal under Rule 41 rather than a class settlement and gave them two options, each with a June 19, 2024 deadline:
1. They could submit the settlement agreement with a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable, addressing the factors identified in the court's cited precedent. The letter also had to address any incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any attorney-fee award to plaintiffs' counsel, including supporting documentation for the fee request when appropriate. 2. They could consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Figueredo for all purposes. If they chose that option, she would decide whether to approve the settlement.
The court also advised that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons overcoming the public's common-law right of access to judicial documents. It likewise would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters without case-specific justification. Finally, a provision barring a plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant would generally need an exception allowing truthful statements about the plaintiff's experience litigating the case, unless the parties justified the broader restriction with case-specific reasons.
If the agreement included any of those provisions, the parties were directed to state whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the settlement but could not rewrite the agreement. The order also noted that judicial approval is not required for an FLSA settlement made through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment.
Disposition
The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement. It set procedures for seeking approval and directed the Clerk to add Christopher Phillips as a plaintiff based on his consent to join filed January 10, 2024. The order was signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on May 31, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.