Martinez Epifanio v. Delancey's Ludlow LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-07593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martinez Epifanio v. Delancey’s Ludlow LLC, Judge Furman ordered the parties to submit their proposed wage settlement for fairness review; he did not approve it.
The plaintiff and defendants in the FLSA action, including plaintiff Salvador Martinez Epifanio and defendant Delancey’s Ludlow LLC, were required to provide the settlement materials and explanations ordered by the court.
What happened
Martinez Epifanio v. Delancey’s Ludlow LLC is a wage case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires overtime pay and an additional equal amount when an employer violates the overtime rule. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by March 18, 2021. They must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and address any payment to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fees. The court also identified limits on confidentiality, broad releases, and restrictions on negative statements about the defendants.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. He required further information before deciding whether to approve it and postponed all pending dates and deadlines.
The detailed version
- Martinez Epifanio v. Delancey's Ludlow LLC · No. 1:19-cv-07593
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 4, 2021
Background
The plaintiff brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. The order explains that, when FLSA claims are settled and dismissed under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement and any proposed attorney’s fee award must be reviewed for fairness.
What the Court Ordered
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by March 18, 2021. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable, referring to the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. The parties must also address any incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to plaintiff’s counsel, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court reminded the parties that they could consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned magistrate judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. The order also states that the court will not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties show case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public’s common-law right of access to judicial documents. Similarly, the court will not approve a release or waiver covering claims that have not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provide case-specific justification. A provision restricting the plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant must include an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless the parties justify the broader restriction.
If the agreement contains any of those provisions, the parties must say whether they want the court to consider approval with the provisions removed. The order cites authority stating that a district court may approve or reject an FLSA settlement but may not modify the agreement itself.
Disposition
Martinez Epifanio v. Delancey’s Ludlow LLC was not finally resolved by this order. Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered additional settlement submissions and postponed all pending dates and deadlines. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.