Lugo v. Bowery Residents' Committee, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-07223
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lugo v. Bowery Residents’ Committee, Judge Furman set options for reviewing an FLSA settlement and adjourned the scheduled conference.
Jillian Lugo and Bowery Residents’ Committee, Inc., whose proposed FLSA settlement remained subject to court approval or review by Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky if the parties consented.
What happened
In Lugo v. Bowery Residents’ Committee, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of Jillian Lugo’s Fair Labor Standards Act wage case. The court explained that it must review a proposed settlement and any attorney-fee award for fairness if the parties plan to dismiss the case.
The parties could either submit the settlement and a joint explanation by March 11, 2025, or consent to have Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky decide whether to approve it. The court also warned that it would generally not approve provisions involving confidentiality, overly broad releases, or certain limits on truthful statements about the case.
Judge Jesse M. Furman adjourned the April 8, 2025 settlement conference without setting a new date. The order did not itself approve the settlement or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Lugo v. Bowery Residents' Committee, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-07223
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 4, 2025
Background
The mediator informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. The opinion explains that the FLSA requires an employer that violates the overtime-pay requirement to pay unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount as liquidated damages. The court did not make a finding in this order that Bowery Residents’ Committee, Inc. violated the FLSA.
Settlement Review
The court explained that a proposed FLSA settlement, including any proposed attorney’s fee award, must be reviewed for fairness if the parties plan to dismiss the action under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case.
The parties were given two options, both with a March 11, 2025 deadline:
1. They could submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining the basis for the settlement and why it was fair and reasonable. The letter was also to address any payment to the plaintiff beyond the settlement amount and any attorney’s fee award, with supporting documentation when appropriate. 2. They could consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky for all purposes, allowing her to decide whether to approve the settlement.
The court also stated that it would not approve a settlement containing certain provisions unless the parties showed case-specific reasons justifying them. These provisions included a confidentiality term, a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters, and a clause restricting negative statements about the defendant without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case.
If the agreement contained one of those provisions, the parties were directed to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provision removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the agreement but could not rewrite it.
Disposition
The court ordered that the settlement conference scheduled for April 8, 2025, was adjourned without a new date being set. The order left settlement approval for a later decision by the court or, if the parties consented, by Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.