Beckwith v. New York City Transit Authority
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-10930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Beckwith v. New York City Transit Authority, Judge Cave questioned a settlement’s publicity ban and scheduled a conference about approval.
The plaintiffs, their counsel, the New York City Transit Authority, and the parties’ proposed settlement-approval process.
What happened
In Beckwith v. New York City Transit Authority, the plaintiffs asked the court to approve a proposed settlement agreement and release. The opinion does not state the settlement’s other terms or the claims’ full details.
The court expressed concern about a provision barring the plaintiffs and their lawyers from publicizing the agreement “in any manner,” including on social media or counsel’s website. The court cited decisions stating that broad limits on sharing truthful information about certain wage-and-hour settlements can conflict with public policy.
Judge Sarah L. Cave did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, she scheduled a telephone conference for March 12, 2025, to address the court’s concerns.
The detailed version
- Beckwith v. New York City Transit Authority · No. 1:19-cv-10930
- Sarah Cave
- Mar. 11, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs submitted a letter seeking approval of their Proposed Settlement Agreement and Release. The opinion identifies the defendant as the New York City Transit Authority and does not describe the claims or the proposed payment terms.
Court’s concern
The court focused on paragraph 5 of the proposed agreement. That provision would prohibit the plaintiffs and their counsel from publicizing the agreement “in any manner,” including through social media or the plaintiffs’ counsel’s website.
The court cited decisions involving settlements under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. Those decisions stated that provisions substantially restricting a plaintiff’s ability to share truthful information about such a settlement or the underlying lawsuit may conflict with public policy because they can prevent other workers from learning about and enforcing their legal rights. The opinion does not expressly state whether the claims in this case arise under that law.
Order
The court did not state that it approved or denied the proposed settlement. Instead, it scheduled a telephone conference for March 12, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, using Microsoft Teams, and directed counsel for all parties to call the listed number and conference identification number.
Effect
The settlement-approval process remained unresolved in this order. The order specifically affects the proposed agreement’s publicity restriction and requires the parties’ counsel to participate in the scheduled conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.