Gomez v. Shine Services LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:20-cv-04190
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gomez v. Shine Services LLC, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and required materials for review of the parties’ settled Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
The parties to the action, including Luis Gomez, Shine Services LLC, and the other named defendants, must submit materials for the court’s review of their settlement.
What happened
In Gomez v. Shine Services LLC, the parties told the court they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They also agreed that Judge Barbara Moses would handle the remaining proceedings.
Judge Moses vacated all previously set deadlines. She ordered the parties to submit a joint explanation of why the settlement is fair, the signed settlement agreement, and supporting records for any request for attorneys’ fees and costs by January 13, 2021.
Judge Moses cautioned that confidentiality terms, restrictive non-disparagement clauses, and one-sided or overly broad releases may prevent approval of a wage-and-hour settlement. She also stated that any attorneys’ fee request must be included in the written agreement and supported by records. The order did not approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Shine Services LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04190
- Barbara Moses
- Dec. 21, 2020
Background
The parties reported that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They then consented to Judge Moses’s authority to handle all remaining proceedings. The opinion does not describe the settlement amount or the specific claims beyond identifying the FLSA claims.
Order
The court vacated all previously established deadlines. It ordered the parties to submit, by January 13, 2021:
- A joint letter explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.;
- A written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which the court stated would be filed on the public docket; and
- Any contingency-fee agreement and time and expense records needed to support a request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement conditions and cautions
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in resolving FLSA wage-and-hour lawsuits. It also cautioned that a non-disparagement provision should not prevent the plaintiff from making truthful statements about his employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement; such a provision should include an exception for truthful statements about those subjects.
The court further stated that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve FLSA settlements containing one-sided or overly broad general releases. Its fairness review also extends to attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed fee award must be stated in the signed written settlement agreement, supported by properly authenticated records, and explained in detail, with the degree of success identified as the most important factor in assessing reasonableness.
Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses ordered the deadlines vacated and required the settlement-review materials by January 13, 2021. The order did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.