Bourcicault v. Belle Fleur Flowers, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-07567
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bourcicault v. Belle Fleur Flowers, LLC, Judge Furman ordered the parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review.
Ronald Bourcicault and the defendants, including Belle Fleur Flowers, LLC, are affected because the court required them to submit and explain their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement before seeking approval or dismissal.
What happened
In Bourcicault v. Belle Fleur Flowers, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle of the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act wage case.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by January 4, 2021. The letter must explain why the proposed settlement and any attorney’s fees, incentive payment, or dismissal would be fair and reasonable.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also warned that the court would not approve certain confidentiality, broad release, or non-disparagement provisions without case-specific justification. The order did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Bourcicault v. Belle Fleur Flowers, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-07567
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 14, 2020
Background
Ronald Bourcicault brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wage and overtime requirements, against Belle Fleur Flowers, LLC, doing business as Belle Fleur, and other defendants. The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that when parties settle Fair Labor Standards Act claims and seek dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—must be reviewed for fairness. The court cited the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. It also noted that court approval is not required for a settlement made through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by January 4, 2021. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why any contemplated dismissal should be approved as fair and reasonable. It must also address any incentive payment to Bourcicault and any attorney’s fee award, with supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court advised that the parties could consent to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge for settlement approval. It further stated that it would not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision without sufficient case-specific reasons; a release or waiver covering unaccrued or unrelated claims without sufficient case-specific reasons; or a non-disparagement clause lacking an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless sufficient case-specific reasons supported the clause. If the agreement contained such provisions, the parties were directed to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with those provisions removed. The court stated that it could approve or reject the settlement but could not modify the agreement itself.
The order did not approve the settlement, award fees, or dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.