Martin v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-03789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martin v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC, Judge Moses ordered the parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review and supporting records.
The parties to the FLSA dispute and their counsel were required to submit settlement materials, and any proposed confidentiality, non-disparagement, release, or fee provisions could affect whether the court approves the settlement.
What happened
In Martin v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC, the parties told the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court ordered them to submit a joint explanation of why the settlement is fair and reasonable, the signed written agreement, and certain attorney-fee and expense records if the agreement includes such an award.
Judge Moses also cautioned that settlement terms involving confidentiality, non-disparagement, broad releases, and attorney fees may affect whether the court approves the settlement. The order did not approve the settlement; it required the parties to submit the requested materials by September 28, 2020.
The detailed version
- Martin v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-03789
- Barbara Moses
- Sept. 15, 2020
Background
The parties consented to the authority of the assigned magistrate judge for all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They informed the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour law.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit, by September 28, 2020, three items: (1) a joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; (2) a written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be placed on the public docket; and (3) if the agreement provides for attorney fees and costs, counsel’s contingency-fee agreement if any, time records, and expense records.
Settlement Terms and Fee Review
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in resolving an FLSA wage-and-hour lawsuit. It also warned that a non-disparagement provision should not prevent the plaintiff from making truthful statements about his employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement.
The court further cautioned that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve one-sided or asymmetrical general releases that benefit remote or unknown corporate affiliates. A genuinely mutual general release may be approved if the plaintiff no longer works for the defendant.
The court stated that its fairness review also extends to attorney fees and costs. Any proposed award had to be included in the signed written settlement agreement and supported by properly authenticated time and expense records and any applicable contingency-fee agreement. The court expected a detailed explanation of the requested award, emphasizing that the degree of success obtained is the most important factor in assessing fee reasonableness.
Disposition
The order required further settlement submissions but did not approve the settlement or decide the underlying FLSA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.