Mohamed v. City of New York
- Sarah Cave
- 1:24-cv-06742
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mohamed v. City of New York, Judge Furman ordered review of any proposed FLSA settlement before dismissing 75 plaintiffs.
The parties in Mohamed v. City of New York, including the 75 plaintiffs identified in the proposed voluntary dismissal, must address the court’s required settlement-review process.
What happened
In Mohamed v. City of New York, 75 plaintiffs filed a stipulation seeking voluntary dismissal from a proposed class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The opinion does not state that the court approved a settlement or dismissal.
The court explained that settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims generally must be reviewed for fairness, including any proposed payments to lawyers. It ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 4, 2025, explaining whether that review was required and, if so, providing the settlement agreement and supporting explanation.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the parties to address any incentive payments and attorney-fee award. He stated that the court generally would not approve agreements containing certain confidentiality, overly broad release, or non-disparagement provisions without adequate justification.
The detailed version
- Mohamed v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-06742
- Sarah Cave
- Mar. 20, 2025
Background
This putative class action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing matters including overtime pay. On March 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal as to 75 plaintiffs. The opinion discusses a proposed dismissal and settlement review; it does not say that the court approved the dismissal or any settlement.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that an employer violating the FLSA’s overtime-pay requirement may owe unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount as liquidated damages. It further explained that, when FLSA claims are settled and dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the court must scrutinize the settlement—including any proposed attorney’s-fee award—to determine whether it is fair and reasonable. The court relied on the standards described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.
The court noted that judicial approval is not required for an FLSA settlement made through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment. It also stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision, a release or waiver covering unaccrued or unrelated claims, or a non-disparagement provision without the case-specific justification described in the order. For a non-disparagement provision, the order specifically identified the need for an exception protecting truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless adequate justification exists. The court also stated that it may approve or reject an FLSA settlement but may not modify the agreement itself.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 4, 2025, explaining why any proposed dismissal should not be reviewed under Cheeks and Wolinsky. If those decisions applied, the parties had to submit the settlement agreement, explain the basis for the proposed settlement, and explain why a Rule 41 dismissal should be approved as fair and reasonable, addressing the Wolinsky factors. The letter also had to address any incentive payments and any attorney’s-fee award, with supporting documentation when appropriate. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered the order on March 20, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.