Thomas v. Mekruth Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-01566
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thomas v. Mekruth Inc., Judge Nathan required settlement materials and postponed deadlines while the court reviewed a proposed wage-law settlement.
The parties to the FLSA action, including Qwame Thomas and Mekruth Inc., were required to submit settlement materials and address possible consent to proceedings before a magistrate judge.
What happened
Thomas v. Mekruth Inc. is a Fair Labor Standards Act wage-and-hour case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement.
The court did not approve the settlement at this stage. It ordered the parties to submit the agreement and a joint explanation by December 15, 2019, including information about the settlement calculations, hours and wages, and any request for attorneys’ fees.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also required the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having the rest of the case handled by a magistrate judge. All upcoming conferences and deadlines were postponed indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Mekruth Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-01566
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 20, 2019
Background
The opinion states that the parties in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action had reached a settlement. The court explained that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Second Circuit precedent, an FLSA settlement must be reviewed to determine whether it is fair before it can take effect.
Settlement submission required
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved by December 15, 2019. The submission had to address the considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., explain how the settlement amounts were calculated, provide sufficiently detailed estimates of hours worked and wages for the court to follow the calculations, and include both sides’ estimates if they disagreed about hours or wages. The parties also had to provide detailed billing records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees.
If the proposed settlement included a non-disparagement provision, the parties had to provide legal authority and arguments showing that the provision was fair and reasonable. The court further advised that it would likely not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
Magistrate-judge consent and case schedule
The court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having all further proceedings conducted by the assigned magistrate judge. If both parties consented, counsel had to file a completed consent and reference form. If either party declined, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying which party or parties declined. The court stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences and that any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely. Judge Alison J. Nathan entered the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.