Brown v. Barnes and Noble, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:16-cv-07333
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brown v. Barnes and Noble, Inc., Judge Vyskocil ordered FLSA settlement materials and scheduled a fairness hearing.
The plaintiffs and Barnes & Noble, Inc., whose proposed settlement must be submitted for judicial fairness review before the court can consider approval.
What happened
In Brown v. Barnes and Noble, Inc., the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle in a case involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court explained that such settlements require court or Department of Labor approval.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by January 29, 2021. The letter must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, including the claims and defenses, potential recovery, litigation risks, negotiation process, attorney fees, and whether fraud or collusion might be involved.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also scheduled a teleconference fairness hearing for February 19, 2021, and adjourned the other filing deadlines and appearance dates without setting new dates. The order did not approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Barnes and Noble, Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-07333
- Katharine Parker
- Jan. 4, 2021
Background
The parties filed a notice stating that they had reached a settlement in principle. The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing matters including minimum wages and overtime pay. The court explained that FLSA settlements require approval by either the district court or the United States Department of Labor.
Orders Regarding Settlement Review
The court ordered the parties to provide a copy of the settlement agreement by January 29, 2021. By the same date, they must submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise rather than an improper waiver of statutory rights.
The letter must address the plaintiffs’ claims and the defendant’s defenses; the defendant’s potential monetary exposure and the basis for any calculations; the strengths and weaknesses of the case and defenses; reasons for any difference between the potential value of the claims and the settlement amount; the litigation and negotiation process; and other matters relevant to whether the settlement is reasonable. It must also discuss whether there is a genuine dispute about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiffs’ attorney will seek in fees.
The court further directed the parties to address the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses avoided through settlement, litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form. The parties could also submit other materials that might assist the court’s review.
Hearing and Disposition
The court ordered the parties to appear by teleconference for a fairness hearing on February 19, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. It adjourned all other filing deadlines and appearance dates without setting new dates. The order required further submissions and set a hearing; it did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.