Feldheim v. iControl Systems USA, LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-08497
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Feldheim v. iControl Systems, Judge Ramos approved Feldheim’s $10,000 Equal Pay Act settlement and closed the case.
Tova Feldheim will receive $10,000 under the approved Equal Pay Act settlement. iControl Systems USA, LLC, Matt Gutmuth, and Jennifer Skinner are the defendants bound by the settlement agreements described in the opinion. Feldheim’s counsel is not seeking attorney fees on the Equal Pay Act claims.
What happened
In Feldheim v. iControl Systems USA, LLC, Tova Feldheim brought claims under federal, New York State, and New York City anti-discrimination and wage laws. The parties separately settled her Equal Pay Act claims and her other claims, and asked the court to approve the Equal Pay Act settlement.
The settlement gives Feldheim $10,000, which the parties estimated was one-third of her possible maximum recovery of $30,000. Feldheim will receive the full settlement amount, and her lawyers are not seeking attorney fees for the Equal Pay Act claims. The parties cited risks in proving the claims, iControl’s financial difficulties, and the delays and uncertainties of litigation.
Judge Ramos found the settlement fair and reasonable and granted the renewed motion for approval. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.
The detailed version
- Feldheim v. iControl Systems USA, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-08497
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 11, 2024
Background
Tova Feldheim sued iControl Systems USA, LLC, Matt Gutmuth, and Jennifer Skinner under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Equal Pay Act, and the New York Labor Law. The parties reached separate agreements resolving the Equal Pay Act claims and the non-Equal Pay Act claims.
The parties first jointly asked the court to approve the Equal Pay Act settlement. The court found that the separate-settlement structure was permissible and that the agreement did not contain objectionable release, non-disparagement, or confidentiality provisions. But the court denied that motion without prejudice because the parties had not provided enough information about Feldheim’s possible recovery and had not clearly stated whether attorney fees and costs were included in the settlement.
The parties filed a renewed motion for approval.
Settlement Amount
The renewed agreement provides Feldheim with $10,000, and she will receive the entire amount. The parties estimated that her best possible recovery on the Equal Pay Act claims would be $30,000, making the settlement one-third of that estimate.
The court found the amount fair and reasonable. It relied on the risks and uncertainties of continued litigation, including the parties’ statement that Feldheim would face significant challenges proving that she was paid differently because of her gender. The parties also identified financial difficulties faced by iControl. The court found that the settlement resolved genuine disputes and represented a reasonable compromise, reached through arm’s-length negotiations by parties represented by experienced counsel.
Attorney Fees and Costs
The parties clarified that Feldheim’s counsel was not seeking attorney fees on the Equal Pay Act claims. Because no attorney fees were being awarded, the court did not assess whether any fee request was reasonable.
Ruling
Judge Ramos granted the renewed motion for settlement approval. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 28, and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.