Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 26, 2025

Brabham v. Peace of Mind Technologies, LLC

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:24-cv-08232
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
FlsaEmploymentFee Petition
In one sentence

In Brabham v. Peace of Mind Technologies, Judge Ramos approved the parties’ $42,500 wage-dispute settlement and closed the case.

Who this affects

Horace Brabham, Peace of Mind Technologies, LLC, Justworks Employment Group LLC, and Brabham’s counsel are affected by the approved settlement and its payment and release terms.

What happened

In Brabham v. Peace of Mind Technologies, LLC, Horace Brabham accused Peace of Mind Technologies and Justworks Employment Group of violating federal and New York wage laws and the Family and Medical Leave Act. He claimed unpaid overtime, improper wage notices and statements, and other losses.

The parties asked the court to approve their settlement. The agreement provided $42,500 total: $14,536 for Brabham’s attorney’s fees and costs and $27,964 for Brabham. Brabham estimated that his maximum possible recovery was about $91,326, but the parties disputed issues including his hours, employment period, possible exemptions, and whether on-call time was compensable.

Judge Ramos ruled that the settlement, attorney’s fees and costs, and other agreement terms were fair and reasonable. He granted the settlement-approval motion, directed the clerk to terminate it, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brabham v. Peace of Mind Technologies, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08232
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Aug. 26, 2025

Background

Horace Brabham sued Peace of Mind Technologies, LLC and Justworks Employment Group LLC. He alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), various provisions of the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). His allegations included failure to pay overtime, failure to provide proper wage notices and statements, and entitlement to lost income, benefits, other damages, interest, and liquidated damages.

The parties jointly moved for approval of a settlement agreement. The agreement called for a total payment of $42,500. Brabham’s counsel would receive $14,536 in attorney’s fees and costs, leaving $27,964 for Brabham. Brabham estimated his maximum recovery at approximately $91,326, including unpaid overtime, wage-notice and wage-statement damages, and unpaid reimbursements.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that, in the Second Circuit, private settlements of FLSA claims that end those claims require approval by the court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore evaluated whether the agreement was fair and reasonable under the circumstances, including the possible recovery, litigation risks and costs, the parties’ negotiations, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

The court found the settlement amount fair and reasonable. The parties had contested the hours Brabham claimed to have worked and the period of his employment. Defendants also raised exemption issues and disputed whether certain on-call time was compensable. The court concluded that the agreement resolved genuine disputes and reflected a reasonable compromise reached through arm’s-length negotiations by attorneys experienced in wage-and-hour litigation.

The court also approved the attorney’s fees and costs. Counsel sought $14,536, including $13,981 in fees. Attorney Abdul K. Hassan submitted records showing 20.99 hours of work at an hourly rate of $500, producing a lodestar—a calculation based on a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by reasonable hours—of $9,926.14. The requested fees represented a multiplier of approximately 1.41 over that lodestar. The court found the hourly rate and multiplier reasonable under the circumstances.

The court found the remaining settlement terms fair and reasonable as well. It determined that the release was limited to wage-and-hour allegations, including claims under the FLSA and NYLL, and related wage claims. The agreement contained no objectionable release, confidentiality provision, or non-disparagement provision.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for settlement approval. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case. The opinion does not state that the court decided whether Brabham’s underlying wage or leave-law allegations were valid; it approved the parties’ settlement instead.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.