Hall v. City of New York
- Barbara Moses
- 1:22-cv-10193
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hall v. City of New York, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and ordered settlement materials for fairness review of the parties’ FLSA settlement.
The plaintiffs and the City of New York, whose settled FLSA dispute remained subject to the court’s required settlement and fee review.
What happened
In Hall v. City of New York, the parties told the court they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They also consented to Judge Barbara Moses’s authority over the remaining proceedings.
The court vacated all previously set deadlines. Unless the parties planned to resolve the case through a Rule 68 offer of judgment, it ordered them to submit a joint explanation supporting the settlement, the signed agreement, and materials supporting any request for attorneys’ fees and costs by May 7, 2025.
Judge Moses cautioned that the court would closely review confidentiality terms, non-disparagement provisions, general releases, and attorneys’ fees and costs before deciding whether to approve the settlement. This order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Hall v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-10193
- Barbara Moses
- Apr. 30, 2025
Background
The parties reported that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). After the settlement, they consented to Judge Barbara Moses’s authority over all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Order
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the case. Unless the parties intended to resolve the action through a Rule 68 offer of judgment, the court ordered them to submit by May 7, 2025: (1) a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; (2) a written settlement agreement executed by all parties, which would be filed publicly; and (3) any contingency-fee agreement and time and expense records needed to support an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement-review cautions
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in resolving wage-and-hour lawsuits involving the FLSA. It also warned that a non-disparagement clause should not prevent a plaintiff from making truthful statements about the plaintiff’s employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. The court further stated that it ordinarily refuses to approve FLSA settlements containing one-way or overbroad general releases.
The court explained that its fairness review includes the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed fee award had to be included in the written settlement agreement, personally signed by the parties, and supported by properly authenticated fee and expense records. The parties were also expected to provide a detailed explanation for the fee award, with the degree of success obtained identified as the most important factor in assessing reasonableness.
Disposition
Judge Moses vacated the existing deadlines and ordered the parties to submit the specified settlement materials unless they intended to use a Rule 68 offer of judgment. The order did not state that the settlement was approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.