Emmanuel De Jesus Perez Rivera v. National Packing Corp., Et Al.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:24-cv-08123
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Emmanuel De Jesus Perez Rivera v. National Packing Corp., Judge Garnett ordered the parties to submit their wage-and-overtime settlement for fairness review.
Emmanuel De Jesus Perez Rivera, National Packing Corp., and the other defendants, whose proposed FLSA settlement must be submitted for fairness review before any Rule 41 dismissal requiring approval.
What happened
Emmanuel De Jesus Perez Rivera sued National Packing Corp. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. A mediator reported that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court explained that proposed settlements of these claims, including proposed attorney-fee awards, must be reviewed for fairness before the case is dismissed under the federal dismissal rule. The court also identified limits on confidentiality, broad releases, and provisions restricting truthful negative statements about the litigation.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the parties to submit their settlement agreement and a joint explanatory letter by October 3, 2025. The parties may instead consent to have the assigned magistrate judge review the settlement; approval is not required for a settlement made through a Rule 68 offer of judgment.
The detailed version
- Emmanuel De Jesus Perez Rivera v. National Packing Corp., Et Al. · No. 1:24-cv-08123
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
A mediator report filed September 5, 2025, informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. The opinion explains that an employer violating the FLSA's overtime-payment requirement may owe unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount as liquidated damages.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that an FLSA settlement proposed with a dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be submitted for judicial scrutiny. The court must assess whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, including any proposed award of attorney's fees. The court also stated that it will not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties show case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public's common-law right of access to judicial documents. It likewise will not approve an overly broad release of unaccrued or unrelated claims without case-specific justification, or a non-disparagement clause that lacks an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff's experience litigating the case, absent sufficient case-specific reasons.
The court noted that the parties may ask it to consider approving an agreement after prohibited provisions are stricken, but cited authority stating that a court may approve or reject an FLSA settlement and may not modify the agreement itself. The court also noted that judicial approval is not required for an FLSA settlement made through a Rule 68 offer of judgment.
Order
Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by October 3, 2025. The letter must explain the proposed settlement's basis and, if the parties contemplate dismissal under Rule 41, why the settlement is fair and reasonable under the factors identified in the cited authority. The letter must also address any incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney's-fee award to plaintiff's counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate.
The parties may consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned magistrate judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. If they choose that option, they must file a fully executed consent form by October 3, 2025. The order does not approve or reject the settlement itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.