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 approved an FLSA settlement, declined to reduce proposed fees, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Stephanie Brown and the other plaintiffs, the City of New York, and the plaintiffs’ attorney; the settlement resolves the plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act claims and the case is closed.
What happened
In Brown v. City of New York, the parties reached a settlement of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing minimum wages and overtime. The court required the parties to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable and raised concerns about the proposed attorney’s fees.
The parties submitted revised time records that excluded time spent soliciting other clients. After reviewing those records and the parties’ explanation, the court found the settlement fair and reasonable in light of the plaintiffs’ individual claims, the risks of further litigation, and the related expenses. The proposed attorney’s fees and costs totaled $11,000, and the court found no basis to reduce that amount.
Judge Jesse M. Furman approved the settlement on the condition that any change to the agreement receive court approval. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, declared all pending motions and deadlines moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Brown v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-08336
- Jesse Furman
- June 28, 2024
Background
Stephanie Brown and the other plaintiffs brought this action against the City of New York under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties notified the court that they had agreed to settle the case. The court directed them to submit a joint letter explaining the proposed settlement and addressing the fairness factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.
After reviewing the parties’ initial submission, the court expressed preliminary concern about the amount of the proposed attorney’s fees. The parties then submitted revised time records, omitting time that the plaintiffs’ attorney had spent soliciting other clients. The court also held a teleconference concerning the reasonableness of the proposed fees.
Court’s Analysis
The court found the settlement fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of the plaintiffs’ individual claims and the risks and expenses of continuing the litigation. The court noted that the Fair Labor Standards Act places strict limits on an employee’s ability to waive claims, but concluded that the concern about improper job-related pressure was less relevant because the plaintiffs no longer worked for the defendant.
The plaintiffs sought approval of $11,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. Although the proposed fee was high compared with the size of the plaintiffs’ claims and recovery, the court found no basis to reduce it. The court relied in part on the fact that the case was not a collective action and that the fee amount was based on an agreement between the plaintiffs and their attorneys.
Disposition
The court approved the settlement subject to the condition that any modification of the settlement agreement must receive court approval, even if the agreement says the parties may modify it without court approval. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, stated that all pending motions and deadlines were moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.