Salas v. 124 Street Market, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-11007
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Salas v. 124 Street Market, Inc., Judge Liman ordered the parties to submit their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for fairness review.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act action, including Pilar Salas, 124 Street Market, Inc., and the other defendants, were required to submit the settlement materials and explanations ordered by the court.
What happened
Salas v. 124 Street Market, Inc. is an employment case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by September 24, 2020. They must explain why the settlement is fair and reasonable, including addressing confidentiality, non-disparagement and release provisions, any payment to the plaintiff, and any attorney-fee request.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. Instead, he required the parties to provide enough information for the court to review the settlement and fees for fairness, warning that inadequate fee documentation could lead to rejection of the proposed fee award.
The detailed version
- Salas v. 124 Street Market, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11007
- Lewis Liman
- Aug. 27, 2020
Background
The action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters such as minimum wages and overtime. The parties notified the court by letter that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that, under Second Circuit law, a settlement in this type of case—including any proposed attorney’s-fee award—must be reviewed to ensure that it is fair. The court directed the parties to address the fairness factors discussed in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.
The court also required information about any confidentiality, non-disparagement, or release provisions; any incentive payment to the plaintiff; and any attorney’s-fee award to plaintiff’s counsel. For fees, the court said that merely stating the requested fee’s proportion of the total settlement was insufficient. The parties instead had to provide adequate supporting documentation, normally including contemporaneous records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could result in rejection of the proposed fee award.
Order
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable by September 24, 2020. The order did not approve or reject the settlement or award attorney’s fees.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.