Minter v. Hess Corporation
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-01538
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Minter v. Hess Corporation, Judge Broderick rejected the proposed FLSA settlement because its release was overbroad and its attorney fee request excessive.
Jason Minter, Hess Corporation, and their counsel were affected by the rejection of the proposed settlement. The agreement’s release and fee provisions also affected the claims Minter would have waived and the compensation requested by his attorneys.
What happened
In Minter v. Hess Corporation, Jason Minter and Hess Corporation asked the court to approve a $36,000 settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act wage case. The court reviewed the agreement because the parties had not obtained Department of Labor approval.
The court found the settlement amount generally reasonable and the negotiation process fair. But it objected to a release requiring Minter to give up nearly any possible claim against Hess, including claims unrelated to wages and hours. It also found that the requested attorney fees and costs—about 43% of the settlement—were not adequately justified above the usual one-third level.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick rejected the settlement in its current form. He gave the parties 30 days either to submit a revised agreement with supporting explanations or to state that they were abandoning settlement, after which he would schedule a status conference.
The detailed version
- Minter v. Hess Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-01538
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 28, 2024
Background
Jason Minter brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case individually and for others similarly situated against Hess Corporation. After the parties reported that they had reached a settlement, the court required them to submit the agreement for approval. Because the Department of Labor had not approved the settlement, the court had to decide whether it was fair and reasonable.
The proposed settlement totaled $36,000. The court stated that the amount was substantively reasonable and that the parties had reached it through procedurally fair means. The court nevertheless reviewed the agreement’s other terms, including the release of claims and the requested attorney fees and costs.
Release of Claims
The agreement required Minter to release Hess and Chippewa from any and all known or unknown, asserted or unasserted claims existing as of the agreement’s effective date. The release covered claims under the FLSA, Title VII, other federal, state, and local laws, and various contract, tort, public-policy, and common-law theories, including claims for fees and costs.
The court found this release plainly overbroad because it was not limited to the wage-and-hour claims involved in the case. The parties did not address or justify the provision in their supporting letter. The court therefore stated that it would not approve a release extending beyond the claims at issue.
Attorney Fees and Costs
Minter’s counsel requested "$15,430,49" in attorney fees and costs, as stated in the settlement agreement and supporting materials. The court described that request as approximately 43% of the total recovery. Courts in the district generally decline to award more than one-third of the total settlement in FLSA cases unless special circumstances justify a higher amount.
Although the parties submitted billing records and an attorney declaration, the court found that those materials did not show that the work justified fees exceeding one-third of the recovery. The court stated that a renewed request should include additional evidence and argument supporting the requested fees.
Disposition
The court found that the settlement was not fair and reasonable and REJECTED it. The court did not rewrite the agreement. Instead, it allowed the parties, within 30 days of the opinion, either to file a revised settlement agreement and a new explanatory letter or to file a joint letter stating that they intended to abandon settlement. If they abandoned settlement, the court stated that it would set a date for a status conference.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick’s order addressed approval of the proposed settlement; the opinion does not state a final ruling on the underlying FLSA claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.