Marcusse v. Citizens Arts Club, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-08379
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marcusse v. Citizens Arts Club, Judge Torres denied approval of the parties’ proposed wage-settlement agreement.
The plaintiffs and defendants named in the opinion were affected because the court did not approve their proposed settlement and required a revised agreement.
What happened
In Marcusse v. Citizens Arts Club, the plaintiffs brought claims for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under federal and New York law. The parties reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it.
Judge Torres found that the agreement’s mutual non-defamation provision did not allow the plaintiffs to make truthful statements about their experience litigating the case. The court said that omission made the agreement unfair and unreasonable in this setting.
Judge Torres denied approval of the settlement as submitted and ordered the parties to submit a revised agreement by July 10, 2020.
The detailed version
- Marcusse v. Citizens Arts Club, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08379
- Analisa Torres
- June 9, 2020
Background
Dillon Marcusse, Edward Miskie, Philip Portolano, Adam Sperandio, and Christina Mavronas brought claims against Citizens Arts Club, Inc., doing business as Norwood, Alan Linn, and Camille Parson. The claims included requests for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage law, and New York Labor Law. The parties reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it.
Court’s Analysis
Federal courts closely review settlements of FLSA claims to ensure that they are fair and reasonable. The proposed agreement included a mutual non-defamation provision. It barred the employees from making defamatory, slanderous, or libelous remarks about Norwood, Parson, or Linn, and imposed a similar restriction on Parson and Linn regarding the employees. The provision also allowed injunctive relief, damages, and legal fees for a violation.
The court concluded that the provision did not expressly allow the plaintiffs to make truthful statements about their experience litigating the case. The court explained that a non-disparagement provision in this context must include such an exception; without it, the provision conflicts with the remedial purposes of the FLSA and is not fair and reasonable.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to approve the settlement. The court ordered the parties to submit a revised settlement agreement that complies with the order by July 10, 2020. Judge Analisa Torres signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.