Oppenheimer v. Crizit, LLC

Background

Paul Oppenheimer, a former employee, brought claims against Crizit, LLC and other defendants under wage-and-hour laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and for breach of contract. The contract described Oppenheimer’s position as “Head of Inside Sales” and provided for a base salary, variable compensation, and benefits. The parties submitted a settlement agreement for review under the requirement that certain FLSA settlements receive court approval as fair and reasonable.

Court’s Review

The court considered the risks, burdens, and costs of continuing the case; the possible recovery; whether the agreement resulted from arms-length negotiations; attorney’s fees; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It found that the settlement amount and attorney’s fees were fair and reasonable and that the agreement resulted from arms-length bargaining rather than fraud or collusion.

The court had previously found the mutual general releases and mutual non-disparagement provision acceptable because the claims extended beyond wage-and-hour claims. The revised agreement removed the confidentiality provision entirely, making the court’s concerns about that provision and about continuing jurisdiction moot. The court also found the no-contact provisions concerning current and former customers and vendors and taxing authorities permissible in the specific circumstances described in the order.

Employee-Contact Provision

The court found the proposed restriction concerning contact with current and former employees overbroad and inconsistent with the public policy behind the FLSA. The court explained that restrictions on discussing an FLSA settlement can prevent workers from learning about wage claims and using that information to protect their statutory rights. Although the provision allowed discussion of the settlement if an employee contacted Oppenheimer for that purpose, the court said it still needed, at minimum, an exception for truthful statements about the facts underlying the action and Oppenheimer’s experience litigating it.

The court distinguished a prior case in which a no-contact restriction applied only at the defendant’s premises and did not bar contact elsewhere. It also noted that another settlement approved a narrower restriction involving publicity through news media and social media, rather than a ban on contacting current or former employees.

Disposition

The court stated that it would approve the settlement if the employee-contact provision was removed or revised to permit truthful statements about the facts underlying, and Oppenheimer’s experience litigating, his wage-and-hour claims. It ordered the parties to file a revised settlement agreement for approval by September 15, 2025. The opinion does not state that final approval was entered on August 27, 2025.