Connors v. American Medical Response, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-05046
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Connors v. American Medical Response, Judge Nathan ordered the parties to submit their wage-and-hour settlement for fairness review before it could take effect.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the wage-and-hour case, including the parties who reached the proposed settlement and their attorneys.
What happened
In Connors v. American Medical Response, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a federal wage-and-hour case. The court said it had to review the agreement to decide whether it was fair before the settlement could take effect.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation within 30 days. The submission must explain the settlement factors, how the amounts were calculated, the hours and wages at issue, and any requested attorney-fee records. The court also warned that it would likely not approve confidentiality terms or a general release of all liability.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also ordered the parties to discuss whether to consent to having future proceedings handled by a magistrate judge. The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely; it did not approve or reject the settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- Connors v. American Medical Response, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05046
- Katharine Parker
- Feb. 3, 2021
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or describe the underlying wage-and-hour claims in detail.
Settlement review
The court explained that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Second Circuit precedent, it must review and scrutinize the settlement agreement for fairness before the agreement can take effect. The court ordered the parties to submit both the agreement and a joint letter within 30 days.
The submission must discuss the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., explain how the settlement amounts were calculated, and list the hours worked and wages involved in enough detail for the court to follow the calculations. If the parties disagreed about hours or wages, the submission must include both sides’ estimates. Any request for attorney fees must be supported by detailed billing records showing the hours spent and the work performed. If the agreement included a non-disparagement provision, the parties had to provide authority and argument showing why that provision was fair and reasonable.
The court further advised that it would likely not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.
Magistrate-judge consent and disposition
The court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having all further proceedings conducted before the assigned magistrate judge. If both parties consented and the court approved the consent form, future proceedings would be conducted before that magistrate judge, and any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If either party declined, the parties had to notify the court within one week after submitting the settlement agreement without identifying the party that declined. The court stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.
Judge Alison J. Nathan adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely. The order required further settlement submissions and did not approve or reject the settlement agreement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.