Mirande v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

Background

The action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law that requires covered employers to pay required overtime wages and, for violations, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. The court was advised by the assigned Magistrate Judge that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the settlement amount or other terms.

Court’s Order

Because the parties contemplated resolving the FLSA claims through a settlement and dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the court stated that it must review the proposed settlement, including any proposed attorney’s fee award, for fairness. The court ordered the parties, by April 3, 2025, to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address any incentive payment to Donna Mirande 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, including settlement approval. If all parties consented, they were required to file a fully executed consent form by April 3, 2025.

The court also stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision absent case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public’s common-law right of access to judicial documents. It likewise would not approve an overly broad release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters without case-specific justification. A non-disparagement clause must include an exception for truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless the parties provide case-specific reasons for omitting that exception. If the agreement included any of these provisions, the parties had to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the agreement but could not rewrite it.

Disposition and Effect

Judge Jesse M. Furman did not approve or reject the proposed settlement in this order. He ordered further submissions for settlement review. The March 27, 2025 pretrial conference and all pending deadlines were adjourned indefinitely. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed or that the settlement became effective.