Murray v. City Of New York, New York
- P. Castel
- 1:16-cv-08072
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Murray v. City of New York: Judge Castel approved an overtime settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The 483 plaintiffs who settled their Fair Labor Standards Act overtime claims, including the 22 plaintiffs who would receive no recovery; the City of New York, which agreed to pay the settlement; and plaintiffs’ counsel, whose fees and costs were approved.
What happened
In Monique Murray, et al. v. City of New York, employees of the City’s Department of Homeless Services alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court had already approved settlements for some claims and was considering settlement of 483 plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid pre-shift, post-shift, and meal-period overtime work.
The City agreed to pay $7,874,492 in total, including backpay, equal liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court found the recovery formula and narrowly tailored releases fair and reasonable. No plaintiff objected, although 22 plaintiffs would receive no recovery.
Judge Castel approved the settlement and the fee award, finding the agreement a good-faith compromise reached through arms-length negotiations. The court dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice and retained jurisdiction only for settlement-administration issues; it also terminated a letter motion as moot.
The detailed version
- Murray v. City Of New York, New York · No. 1:16-cv-08072
- P. Castel
- Apr. 23, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs were employees of the City of New York’s Department of Homeless Services. They sued the City under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wage and overtime requirements. Count I alleged that the City failed to pay them for overtime work performed before shifts, after shifts, and during meal periods. The court had previously approved settlements concerning Counts II through IV. The pending application sought approval of a settlement resolving Count I claims brought by 483 individual plaintiffs.
The case involved extensive discovery, and a jury trial on Count I had been scheduled to begin on March 31, 2021. Counsel represented that they had authority to settle for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had been informed of the settlement’s aggregate terms, the attorneys’ fees and costs requested, each plaintiff’s individual payment, and the payments to other plaintiffs. No plaintiff objected.
Settlement Terms
The City agreed to pay a gross settlement of $7,874,492. That amount consisted of $3,427,453.50 in backpay, $3,427,453.50 in liquidated damages, and $1,019,586 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The resulting aggregate net payment to the individual plaintiffs was $6,854,907. Each plaintiff had agreed to a 30% contingency fee, but because the City paid $1,019,586 toward fees, 20.36% would be paid from the plaintiffs’ shares. Unrecovered costs totaled $75,107.12.
The proposed formula for calculating each plaintiff’s recovery appeared fair and reasonable to the court. The schedule showed each plaintiff’s gross recovery; 22 of the 483 plaintiffs would receive no recovery, and the highest individual gross recovery was $22,883.84. The releases were limited to Count I claims for work in covered DHS titles from October 14, 2013, through April 1, 2021. The agreement stated that the City did not admit liability.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court characterized the settlement as a good-faith compromise of a disputed matter reached through arms-length negotiations during hard-fought litigation. It noted the risks of proceeding through trial, post-verdict proceedings, and appeal. The plaintiffs estimated that the gross recovery represented about 75% of the backpay owed for the claimed overtime, plus an equal amount in liquidated damages.
The court approved attorneys’ fees of $2,339,815.46 for Count I, plus reasonable costs of $75,107.12. Considering the work’s complexity, the risks, the results, and the relationship between the lodestar—the fee calculation based on reasonable hours and rates—and the requested fees across Counts I through IV, the court found the fee award reasonable. Citing the requirements governing approval of Fair Labor Standards Act settlements, the court concluded that the settlement terms and fee award were fair and reasonable and approved them.
The action in its entirety was dismissed with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to address settlement-administration issues. The letter motion filed as Document 222 was terminated as moot.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.