Oppenheimer v. Crizit

Background

Paul Oppenheimer brought this action against Crizit, LLC, and other defendants as a former employee. The opinion states that he asserted wage-and-hour claims, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and a breach-of-contract claim. His employment contract provided for an annual base salary of $80,000, additional variable compensation, and benefits.

The parties submitted a settlement agreement for court review under the requirement that certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements receive judicial approval. In the court’s earlier August 27 order, the court found the settlement’s financial terms and attorney’s fees fair and reasonable and found that the agreement resulted from arms-length negotiations without fraud or collusion. The court accepted some nonfinancial provisions, including restrictions concerning current and former customers and vendors and taxing authorities, but found the restriction concerning current and former employees too broad.

The Earlier Settlement Review

The court explained that a restriction preventing a plaintiff from communicating about a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement can be contrary to public policy because it may prevent workers from learning about their rights. The proposed Section 5.1 broadly restricted Oppenheimer from contacting or communicating with any current or former employee of the defendants about the defendants. The court stated that the provision needed either to be removed or revised to allow truthful statements about the facts underlying the wage-and-hour claims and Oppenheimer’s experience litigating them.

The court also stated that it would not exercise continuing authority over the settlement unless the agreement was filed publicly. The parties’ revised agreement had removed its confidentiality provision, making the court’s concerns about that provision and continuing authority moot.

September 9 Order

The September 9 order addressed a typographical error in the August 27 order. The September 9 order states that the section requiring further change was Section 5.1, not Section 5.2. It directed the parties to revert Section 5.2 to its previous version and revise Section 5.1 to match the language described in the last substantive paragraph of the August 27 order.

The parties were ordered to file the final revised settlement agreement by September 23, 2025. The court did not state in the September 9 order that it had finally approved the settlement agreement. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger.