Lesser v. TIAA Bank, FSB
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-01707
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lesser v. TIAA Bank, FSB, Judge Nathan denied a special-master request and ordered settlement materials for review in the parties’ wage case.
The parties to the FLSA action, their attorneys, and the assigned magistrate judge are affected. The settlement remained subject to the court’s review and was not approved in this order.
What happened
Lesser v. TIAA Bank, FSB is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement. The opinion does not approve the settlement.
The court said it must review the agreement to decide whether it is fair. It ordered the parties to submit the agreement and a joint explanation by August 1, 2020, including information about the settlement calculations, hours and wages, and any requested attorney fees.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the request to appoint a special master. She also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having future proceedings handled by the assigned magistrate judge, and adjourned upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Lesser v. TIAA Bank, FSB · No. 1:19-cv-01707
- Alison Nathan
- June 25, 2020
Background
The court stated that the parties in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action had reached a settlement. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or describe the underlying wage claims in detail.
Rulings and required submissions
The Court DENIES the parties’ request to appoint a special master.
The court explained that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), it must review and scrutinize an FLSA settlement before the settlement can take effect. It ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved by August 1, 2020.
The submission must address the considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., explain how the settlement amounts were calculated, list the plaintiffs’ hours and wages in enough detail for the court to follow the calculations, and include both sides’ estimates if the parties disagree about hours or wages. Any request for attorney fees must be supported by detailed billing records showing the hours worked and the nature of the work. If the settlement includes a non-disparagement provision, the parties must provide authority and argument supporting its fairness and reasonableness.
The court also advised that it would likely not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability. The parties may submit an arbitrator’s decision as persuasive support for approval.
Magistrate-judge consent and scheduling
The parties must meet and confer about whether they consent, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to having all further proceedings handled by the assigned magistrate judge. If both consent, counsel must file the required completed consent and reference form. If either party does not consent, the parties must file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party or parties withholding consent. The opinion states that the parties may withhold consent without negative consequences. Any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. All upcoming conferences and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.