Bediako v. P & G Auditors and Consultants
Bediako v. P & G Auditors and Consultants, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:19-cv-02527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bediako v. P & G Auditors, Judge Furman ordered the parties to submit their proposed FLSA settlement for fairness review.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act wage-and-hour action were required to submit and explain their proposed settlement. The order also affected plaintiff’s counsel to the extent the settlement included a proposed attorney’s fee award.
What happened
In Damani Bediako et al. v. P & G Auditors and Consultants, LLC et al., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle of their Fair Labor Standards Act wage case.
The court explained that it must review the settlement, including any proposed attorney’s fee award, to decide whether it is fair and reasonable. The court also identified confidentiality, overly broad releases, and certain non-disparagement provisions as terms it generally would not approve without a case-specific justification.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by March 2, 2020. He adjourned the scheduled pretrial conference and all pending deadlines while the court reviewed the proposed settlement; the opinion did not approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Bediako v. P & G Auditors and Consultants · No. 1:19-cv-02527
- Stewart Aaron
- Jan. 2, 2020
Background
The action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wage and overtime requirements. The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. The order did not state the settlement amount or provide the settlement agreement.
Settlement Review
The court explained that an FLSA settlement, including any proposed award of attorney’s fees, must be reviewed to ensure that it is fair and reasonable. The court directed the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved, referring to the fairness factors discussed in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. The letter also had to address any incentive payments to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to the plaintiff’s counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate.
Settlement Terms Addressed by the Court
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the common-law right of access to judicial documents. It also stated that it would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific justification. Finally, it stated that it would not approve a provision barring the plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant unless the provision protected truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, or the parties provided case-specific justification for omitting that protection.
If the agreement contained any of those provisions, the parties had to state whether they would proceed with the settlement without the provision or abandon the settlement and continue litigating if the court refused to approve it. The court also advised that the parties could consent to have the assigned Magistrate Judge decide whether to approve the settlement.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement materials by March 2, 2020. It adjourned the April 7, 2020 pretrial conference and all pending deadlines until the parties submitted a settlement stipulation for review and approval. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.