Cardoso v. Studio 34 Hair Salon, Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-09684
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Cardoso v. Studio 34 Hair Salon, Judge Moses ordered parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review and vacated existing deadlines.
The parties to the settled wage-and-hour case, including Marcela Cardoso and Studio 34 Hair Salon, Inc., were required to submit settlement and fee-support materials by October 7, 2020.
What happened
In Cardoso v. Studio 34 Hair Salon, Inc., the parties told the court they had settled claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
The court vacated all previously set deadlines and ordered the parties to submit a joint explanation supporting the settlement, the signed agreement, and documents supporting any request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The court had not yet approved the settlement.
Judge Barbara Moses also cautioned that confidentiality provisions, improper non-disparagement clauses, and broad releases may prevent approval, and that any attorneys’ fees and costs must be justified.
The detailed version
- Cardoso v. Studio 34 Hair Salon, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09684
- Barbara Moses
- Sept. 23, 2020
Background
Marcela Cardoso brought this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Studio 34 Hair Salon, Inc., and other defendants. The opinion states that the parties settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties also consented to Judge Moses’s authority over the remaining proceedings.
What the Court Ordered
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the case. It ordered the parties to submit by October 7, 2020: (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 filed publicly; and (3) any contingency-fee agreement and time and expense records needed to support an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
The order did not approve the settlement. Instead, it required the parties to provide information for the court’s fairness review of the proposed FLSA settlement.
Court’s Cautions
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in wage-and-hour settlements because of the policies underlying the FLSA. It also cautioned that a non-disparagement clause should not prevent a plaintiff from making truthful statements about the employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement.
The court further stated that courts in the Southern District of New York ordinarily refuse to approve FLSA settlements containing one-sided or overly broad general releases. Any requested attorneys’ fees and costs had to be included in the written settlement agreement, supported by properly authenticated records, and explained in detail. The court emphasized that the degree of success obtained is the most important factor in evaluating the reasonableness of a fee award.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.