Rubenstein v. Wings Media, LLC

Background

Catherine Rubenstein brought this action against Wings Media, LLC and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing minimum wages and overtime pay. The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.

Under the FLSA, an employer that violates overtime-pay requirements may be required to pay the unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount as additional damages. The court explained that a settlement followed by dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 must be reviewed for fairness, including any proposed award of attorney’s fees. The opinion cited standards for evaluating the fairness and reasonableness of an FLSA settlement and fee award.

Court’s Order

The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by December 19, 2024. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and, if the parties contemplate dismissal under Rule 41, why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable. It must address any incentive payment to Rubenstein and any attorney’s fee award to her counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate.

The court reminded the parties that they could consent to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge for all purposes, in which case that judge would decide whether to approve the settlement. If they consented, they were required to file a fully executed consent form by December 19, 2024.

The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public-access right relating to judicial documents. It also 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. A provision barring Rubenstein from making negative statements about a defendant would need an exception for truthful statements about her experience litigating the case, unless the parties justified the provision without that exception.

If the agreement contained any of those provisions, the parties had 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 itself.

Disposition and Effect

The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It required additional submissions for the court’s review, adjourned the December 12, 2024 pretrial conference and all pending deadlines without setting a new date, and directed the clerk to terminate the filing identified as ECF No. 45.