Melchor v. Milano Market Place Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-11277
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Melchor v. Milano Market Place, Judge Vyskocil ordered the parties to submit their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for review and attend a fairness hearing.
The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including Antonio Estrada Melchor and the defendants, were required to submit settlement materials and participate in the court’s fairness-review process.
What happened
In Melchor v. Milano Market Place Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act case and asked to postpone a scheduled settlement conference.
Because the case includes wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court explained that a judge or the Labor Department must approve the settlement. The court therefore required the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why it is fair and reasonable.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the parties to file those materials by November 13, 2020, and required the plaintiff to attend a fairness hearing by telephone on December 1, 2020. The order did not approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Melchor v. Milano Market Place Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11277
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
Antonio Estrada Melchor brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Milano Market Place Inc., doing business as Milano Market, and other defendants. The court had referred the case to a magistrate judge for settlement purposes. The parties later informed the magistrate judge that they had reached a settlement in principle and requested that the scheduled settlement conference be postponed. The magistrate judge granted that request.
Settlement Review
The court explained that settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require approval by either the district court or the United States Department of Labor. The court stated that it must examine the proposed settlement for fairness and determine whether it reflects a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than an employer’s overreaching or a waiver of statutory rights.
The court ordered the parties to provide a copy of the settlement agreement by November 13, 2020. By the same date, they also had to submit a joint letter addressing the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the parties’ litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The letter also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Ruling and Next Steps
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the parties, including the plaintiff personally, to appear by telephone for a fairness hearing on December 1, 2020. The defendants could attend but were not required to do so. If the plaintiff did not speak English, he had to provide his own interpreter. The court adjourned all other filing deadlines and appearance dates. This order required additional submissions and a hearing; it did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.