Agramonte v. Gurum Corporation
- James Cott
- 1:20-cv-04819
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Agramonte v. Gurum, Judge Furman set options and a deadline for reviewing an FLSA settlement and adjourned the settlement conference.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the FLSA overtime case, their attorneys regarding any proposed fee award, and Magistrate Judge Cott regarding the possible settlement-approval process.
What happened
In Agramonte v. Gurum Corporation, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of their Fair Labor Standards Act overtime case. The court explained that proposed settlements and attorney-fee awards must be reviewed for fairness if the case will be dismissed under Rule 41.
The parties were given two options by December 8, 2020: submit the settlement and a joint explanation for court approval, or agree to let Magistrate Judge Cott decide whether to approve it. The order did not approve the settlement.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also stated that the court generally would not approve certain confidentiality, broad-release, or non-disparagement provisions, and adjourned the December 10 settlement conference without setting a new date.
The detailed version
- Agramonte v. Gurum Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-04819
- James Cott
- Nov. 25, 2020
Background
The court was advised by Magistrate Judge Cott, who had been assigned the settlement conference, that the parties had reached a settlement. The action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires an employer that violates overtime-payment requirements to pay unpaid overtime and an equal amount as additional damages.
Settlement-review requirements
The order explained that when FLSA claims are settled and dismissed under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court must review the settlement—including any proposed attorney-fee award—to determine whether it is fair. The order did not itself approve or reject the settlement.
The parties were given two ways to finalize the matter, assuming they intended to seek dismissal under Rule 41. By December 8, 2020, they could submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter was also required to address any incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any attorney-fee award, including supporting documentation when appropriate. Alternatively, by the same date, the parties could consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Cott for all purposes, allowing him to decide whether to approve the settlement.
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public-access right applicable to judicial documents. It also generally would not approve a release of claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters, or a non-disparagement clause that barred negative statements without an exception for truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless the parties provided case-specific justification. If such provisions appeared in the agreement, the parties were directed to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with those provisions removed. The order noted that the court could approve or reject the agreement but could not modify it itself.
Disposition
The court set December 8, 2020 as the deadline for the parties’ next submission or consent, and ordered that the previously scheduled December 10, 2020 settlement conference be adjourned without setting a new date. The order did not state that the settlement was approved, and it did not enter a dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.