Lawtone-Bowles v. City of New York, New York

Background

The opinion addresses two related actions: Lawtone-Bowles v. City of New York and Bookman v. City of New York. Nineteen individuals who work or worked for the City’s Department of Homeless Services as motor vehicle operators asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. They alleged that the City failed to pay them for pre-shift and post-shift work, overtime during unpaid meal periods, and overtime calculated using the proper regular rate. They also alleged delayed overtime payments and payment of overtime at straight time rather than one-and-a-half times the regular rate.

The cases involved extensive discovery and cross-motions for summary judgment. In June 2020, Judge Alison Nathan granted the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion in part on the Regular Rate and Straight Time claims and denied the City’s motion. Trial was scheduled for March 2021, but the parties reached a settlement after several settlement discussions before Judge Wang. The parties then submitted the agreement for approval under the procedure required for settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

Settlement Amounts

The total settlement was $962,323, allocated as follows:

- $147,614 in backpay; - $152,476 in liquidated damages; - $1,000 as a service award to lead plaintiff Nicole Lawtone-Bowles; - $605,549 in attorneys’ fees; and - $55,684 in costs.

The plaintiffs’ backpay and liquidated-damages recovery totaled $300,090, which the opinion states represented 75% of their total claimed damages using a three-year recovery period and a full liquidated-damages award. The average net settlement amount for each plaintiff was $15,794.21.

Court’s Analysis

Under Second Circuit precedent, a stipulated dismissal settling Fair Labor Standards Act claims with prejudice requires approval by the district court or the Department of Labor. The court applied five nonexclusive factors for evaluating whether the settlement was fair and reasonable: the plaintiffs’ possible recovery; the burdens and expenses avoided through settlement; the litigation risks; whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length; and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

The court found that settlement avoided the expense and burden of trial and allowed the plaintiffs to obtain recovery without the risk of receiving less or nothing on some claims. The parties represented that the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between experienced wage-and-hour counsel, and the record contained no evidence of fraud or collusion.

The court separately examined the attorneys’ fees and costs award of $661,233. Although the amount was high and represented 68.7% of the total award, the court held that it was reasonable. Counsel had spent 1,850.45 hours litigating the case, including work involving nineteen plaintiffs, expert analysis, depositions, discovery, motion practice, and preparation for a complex trial. The requested fees were below counsel’s recorded fees and costs of $958,020.13. A lodestar cross-check—multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates—produced a lodestar of $848,151.27, compared with the requested $605,549 in fees.

The court also found that the release was appropriately limited to claims based on the plaintiffs’ employment with the City. The agreement contained no confidentiality or non-disparagement provision. The court approved the $1,000 service award to Nicole Lawtone-Bowles because she helped initiate the lawsuit, gathered facts and evidence, and communicated with the other plaintiffs.

Disposition

Judge Ona T. Wang approved the parties’ proposed settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. The Clerk of Court was directed to close all open motions in both case numbers. The opinion concerns approval of the settlement and does not independently decide the remaining wage claims on their merits.