Nandkumar v. 200 East 59th Street Condominium

Background

The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wage and overtime requirements. The opinion states that an employer violating the overtime-payment requirement must pay the unpaid overtime and an equal amount as additional damages.

Settlement-review requirement

The court explained that when parties settle Fair Labor Standards Act claims and seek dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement must be reviewed for fairness. The review includes any proposed attorney’s fee award. The court therefore ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by August 3, 2026. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it is fair and reasonable, referring to the factors identified in Wolinsky. It must also address any incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to plaintiff’s counsel, including supporting documentation when appropriate.

The court noted that judicial approval is not required for a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement made through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment. The parties may also consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes; if they do so, they must file a fully executed consent form by August 3, 2026.

Prohibited settlement provisions

The court stated that it will not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties show case-specific reasons overcoming the public’s common-law right of access to court documents. It also will not approve a release or waiver covering claims that have not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provide case-specific justification. A provision barring the plaintiff from making negative statements about the defendant must include an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless the parties justify the broader restriction with case-specific reasons.

If the agreement contains one of those provisions, the parties must say whether they want the court to consider approving the agreement with the provision removed. The court explained that it may approve or reject the settlement but may not rewrite the agreement.

Order

Judge Jesse M. Furman did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. He adjourned the August 6, 2026 pretrial conference and all pending deadlines without setting a new date, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 24, the filing that reported the settlement.