Gasperi v. PB Hudson LLC
- Laura Swain
- 1:19-cv-09309
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gasperi v. PB Hudson LLC, Judge Swain denied without prejudice approval of a settlement because its release and confidentiality terms were not justified.
Carlos Gasperi, PB Hudson LLC, and the other defendants, whose proposed settlement was not approved.
What happened
In Gasperi v. PB Hudson LLC, Carlos Gasperi asked the court to approve the parties’ settlement and dismissal of the case with prejudice. The court had to decide whether the settlement was fair and reasonable.
The court found that the stated settlement rationale and attorney-fee amounts appeared reasonable. But the agreement also required Gasperi to broadly release claims beyond the retaliation claim and imposed strict confidentiality obligations only on him, potentially exposing him to severe consequences.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the parties’ application for settlement approval without prejudice. The court allowed the parties to resubmit an agreement by June 1, 2021, without the general-release and confidentiality provisions in sections five and six.
The detailed version
- Gasperi v. PB Hudson LLC · No. 1:19-cv-09309
- Laura Swain
- May 25, 2021
Background
Carlos Gasperi submitted a letter and settlement agreement asking the court to approve the parties’ stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The opinion states that the case involved a retaliation claim and that the proposed settlement was reviewed under the requirement that certain employee settlements be fair and reasonable.
Court’s analysis
The court said the settlement’s stated rationale and attorney-fee amounts were consistent with the mediator’s recollection and appeared reasonable on their face. But the agreement included a broad general release that extended beyond the retaliation claim. It also included a strict confidentiality provision binding only Gasperi and potentially carrying severe consequences.
The court noted that no evidence or argument explained why those provisions were necessary or why they were fair and reasonable. It cited decisions rejecting settlements with releases or confidentiality terms that undermine employees’ awareness of their rights.
Ruling
The court denied the parties’ application for approval of the settlement agreement, without prejudice to resubmission. It directed that any resubmitted agreement omit the general-release and confidentiality provisions in sections five and six and be submitted by June 1, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.