Amhaz v. Booking.com Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:17-cv-02120
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Amhaz v. Booking.com, Judge Daniels approved the parties’ proposed settlement after finding no clear error and the agreement fair and reasonable.
The ruling affected Nancy Amhaz, the other named plaintiffs, the FLSA collective and class referenced in the caption, and Booking.com (USA) Inc. and the other defendants by approving their proposed settlement.
What happened
Amhaz v. Booking.com (USA) Inc. involved claims by Nancy Amhaz and other plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York law, and New York City law. The plaintiffs alleged unpaid overtime, inadequate wage statements and records, discrimination, and sexual harassment.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended approving the parties’ proposed settlement as fair and reasonable. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge George B. Daniels adopted the recommendation and approved the proposed settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or provide its full terms.
The detailed version
- Amhaz v. Booking.com Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-02120
- George Daniels
- June 29, 2020
Background
Nancy Amhaz brought the action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The complaint asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the defendants failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide wage statements and records, and engaged in unlawful discrimination and sexual harassment.
Settlement Review
The parties submitted a proposed settlement for court approval. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued a report recommending approval under the standard requiring a court to determine that a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement is fair and reasonable. No party filed objections. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the report for clear error, meaning a definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been made.
The court found no clear error. It agreed with Magistrate Judge Wang that the circumstances of the negotiations, the possible recovery, the litigation risks, and the parties’ arm’s-length negotiations supported approval. The court also found no evidence of fraud or collusion, no improper settlement provisions, and attorney’s fees and costs within the range typically approved in the district.
Ruling
Judge George B. Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s report and approved the proposed settlement agreement. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or the agreement’s complete terms.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.