Gonzalez Villegas v. Caribbean Produce Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-02507
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gonzalez Villegas v. Caribbean Produce, Judge Furman ordered FLSA parties to submit their settlement for fairness review and adjourned deadlines.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the FLSA wage-and-hour action, who were required to submit their settlement agreement and supporting explanation for court review.
What happened
In Gonzalez Villegas v. Caribbean Produce Inc., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle in a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal law governing overtime pay.
The court required the parties to submit their settlement agreement and a joint explanation by January 22, 2021. The explanation had to address why the proposed settlement was fair, as well as any incentive payments and attorneys’ fees.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also stated that the court would not approve certain confidentiality, broad release, or non-disparagement provisions without sufficient justification. The court adjourned the pretrial conference and all pending deadlines without setting a new date, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 27.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez Villegas v. Caribbean Produce Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02507
- Katharine Parker
- Dec. 18, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which includes requirements for paying overtime wages. The parties notified the court through a December 18, 2020 letter-motion that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Settlement Review
The court explained that an FLSA settlement involving dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 must be reviewed to ensure that it is fair. The court therefore ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement by January 22, 2021, along with a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter also had to address any incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any attorneys’ fee award to plaintiffs’ counsel, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
The order advised that the parties could instead consent to proceed for this purpose before the assigned magistrate judge. If all parties consented, they were directed to email the completed consent form to Judge Furman’s chambers by January 22, 2021.
Settlement Provisions and Case Administration
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’s common-law right of access to judicial documents. It also would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties justified that breadth. In addition, a non-disparagement clause had to include an exception allowing truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless the parties provided case-specific reasons for omitting that exception.
If the agreement contained any of those provisions, the parties had to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provisions removed. The order noted that the court could approve or reject the agreement but could not rewrite it. Judge Jesse M. Furman adjourned the January 7, 2021 pretrial conference and all pending deadlines without setting a new date, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 27.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.