Harding v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-11948
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harding v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and required documentation of the parties’ settled Fair Labor Standards Act dispute.
The parties to the settled dispute, including the plaintiffs and defendants in Harding v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC, and their counsel seeking approval of the settlement or an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
What happened
In Harding 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. They also agreed to Judge Barbara Moses’s authority over the remaining proceedings.
Judge Moses vacated all previously set deadlines and ordered the parties to submit a joint explanation of why the settlement is fair, the signed settlement agreement, and materials supporting any request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The court also cautioned that confidentiality provisions, certain non-disparagement provisions, and broad one-way releases may prevent approval of a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Judge Moses did not approve the settlement in this order. Instead, she required the parties to provide the requested materials by October 5, 2020, so the court could review the settlement’s fairness and the reasonableness of any fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Harding v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11948
- Barbara Moses
- Sept. 14, 2020
Background
The parties reported that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They then consented to Judge Barbara Moses’s authority over all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Orders concerning the settlement
The court ordered that all deadlines previously set in the action were vacated. It further ordered the parties to submit, by October 5, 2020:
- A joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.;
- A written settlement agreement executed by all parties, which would be placed on the public docket; and
- Any contingency-fee agreement and time and expense records needed to support an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Court’s cautions
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in resolving an FLSA wage-and-hour lawsuit because of the policy concerns underlying the statute. It added that a non-disparagement provision may be improper if it prevents a plaintiff from making truthful statements about the plaintiff’s employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. The court also stated that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve FLSA settlements containing one-way or overbroad general releases.
The court explained that its fairness review includes the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed fee and cost award had to be included in the written settlement agreement, signed by the parties, supported by properly authenticated records, and accompanied by a detailed explanation. The court identified the degree of success obtained as the most important factor in evaluating a fee award.
Disposition
Judge Moses vacated the existing deadlines and ordered the parties to submit materials for review. This order does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.