Jane Doe v. Solera Capital LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-01769
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Jane Doe v. Solera Capital, Judge Ramos approved the revised settlement of Doe’s wage-and-hour claims and closed the case.
Jane Doe receives $33,333.33 under the approved wage-and-hour settlement; her counsel receives $16,666.67 in fees and litigation costs; Solera Capital LLC and Molly Ashby are parties to the settlement, and the case is closed.
What happened
Jane Doe sued Solera Capital LLC and Molly Ashby over employment discrimination, a hostile work environment, retaliation, and wage-and-hour violations. The parties submitted revised settlement agreements after the court rejected their first proposal because of problems with confidentiality, non-disparagement, and support for attorney fees.
The court reviewed both revised agreements because the non-wage terms could affect Doe’s wage-and-hour settlement. The revised terms allowed Doe to discuss her wage-and-hour claims and make truthful statements about them. The settlement gave Doe $33,333.33 and her counsel $16,666.67 in fees and litigation costs.
Judge Ramos found the settlement and fee award fair and reasonable, granted the request to approve the revised wage-and-hour agreement, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Jane Doe v. Solera Capital LLC · No. 1:18-cv-01769
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 3, 2021
Background
Jane Doe brought claims against Solera Capital LLC and Molly Ashby for employment discrimination, a hostile work environment, retaliation, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and violations of New York Labor Law. The parties initially sought approval of two settlement agreements: one resolving the wage-and-hour claims and another resolving the non-wage-and-hour claims.
On January 20, 2021, the court declined to approve the first settlement application without prejudice. It identified three problems: the confidentiality provision improperly restricted Doe’s ability to discuss her wage-and-hour claims; the non-disparagement clause similarly restricted truthful statements about those claims; and Doe’s counsel had not provided evidence supporting the proposed attorney-fee award.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed both revised agreements under the settlement-review standard applied to FLSA settlements. It explained that the non-wage-and-hour agreement also required review because its terms could improperly affect the FLSA claims.
The court found that the revised confidentiality provision allowed Doe to discuss information related to her wage-and-hour claims. The revised non-disparagement clause allowed her to make truthful statements about her experience, the litigation, and the resolution of those claims. Doe’s counsel also submitted documentation supporting the requested fee award.
The revised FLSA Agreement awarded Doe $33,333.33 and awarded her counsel $16,666.67 in fees and litigation costs. Doe alleged $58,408.25 in unpaid wages, so her payment represented 57% of those claimed unpaid wages. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, noting the contested issues, Doe’s desire to avoid the risks and delays of further litigation, and the appearance that the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining.
The court separately reviewed the attorney-fee request. The requested $16,666.67 represented 33.3% of the total FLSA settlement amount. The court could not determine the precise percentage after subtracting litigation costs because the submission did not identify what portion of the fee award represented those costs. It nevertheless concluded that the percentage would be no greater than 33.3%.
As an additional check, the court considered the lodestar method, which estimates fees by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours worked. Counsel reported 561.75 hours at an hourly rate of $450, but the hours were not divided between the wage-and-hour and other claims, and counsel did not provide support for the high hourly rate. The court did not need to resolve those issues because even one-tenth of the reported hours at $250 per hour would produce a lodestar of $14,044, making the proposed fee award a 1.19 multiplier before subtracting litigation costs. The court found that result reasonable.
Ruling
Judge Ramos concluded that the revised FLSA Agreement was fair and reasonable and granted the parties’ request for approval of that agreement. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying discrimination, retaliation, hostile-work-environment, or wage claims on their merits.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.