Rivera-Colon v. Eliseo
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-01667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hector Rivera-Colon v. Robert Eliseo, Judge Furman set procedures for reviewing the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and adjourned the pretrial conference.
The plaintiff Hector Rivera-Colon, the defendants Robert Eliseo and the other named defendants, their lawyers, and Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave were affected by the settlement-approval procedures and the adjournment of the pretrial conference.
What happened
In Hector Rivera-Colon v. Robert Eliseo, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The court explained that a settlement ending those claims generally must be reviewed for fairness, including any proposed payment to the plaintiff’s lawyers.
The court gave the parties two options by July 15, 2021: submit the agreement and a joint explanation supporting its fairness, or agree to let Magistrate Judge Cave decide whether to approve it. The court also identified confidentiality, overly broad releases, and certain non-disparagement provisions that it generally would not approve without a case-specific justification.
Judge Jesse M. Furman adjourned the previously scheduled September 23, 2021 pretrial conference without setting a new date. The order did not approve or reject the settlement itself.
The detailed version
- Rivera-Colon v. Eliseo · No. 1:21-cv-01667
- Sarah Cave
- July 1, 2021
Background
The court was told by Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave, who had been assigned to conduct a settlement conference, that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The opinion states that the Act requires an employer violating overtime-pay requirements to pay unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount as additional damages.
The court explained that when the parties settle Fair Labor Standards Act claims and plan to end the case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must review the settlement—including any proposed attorney’s-fee award—to determine whether it is fair. The order cited the factors discussed in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. The opinion also noted that court approval is not required when the settlement uses a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment.
Options for Finalizing the Settlement
The parties could either:
- Submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter to the court by July 15,
- The letter had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable, address any incentive payment to the plaintiff, and address any attorney’s-fee award to the plaintiff’s counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate; or
- Consent by the same date to proceed before Magistrate Judge Cave for all purposes, allowing her to decide whether to approve the settlement.
Settlement Provisions Identified by the Court
The court stated that it would not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public-access right applicable to court documents. It also would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific justification. Finally, it would not approve a clause barring the plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant unless the clause protected truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, or the parties provided case-specific justification for omitting that protection.
If the agreement contained any of those provisions, the parties had to say whether they wanted the court alternatively to consider approval after the provisions were removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the settlement but could not modify the agreement itself. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the pretrial conference scheduled for September 23, 2021, was adjourned without a new date. The order set a deadline and procedures for seeking settlement approval but did not make a final merits ruling on the Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.