Campbell v. City of New York
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:16-cv-08719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Campbell v. City of New York, Judge Nathan ordered the parties to submit their proposed FLSA settlement for fairness review.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the FLSA action, as well as counsel seeking attorneys’ fees, must provide the required settlement materials and address the court’s instructions about future proceedings.
What happened
In Campbell v. City of New York, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court did not approve the settlement at this stage.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by August 12, 2021. Their submission must explain how the payments were calculated, the hours and wages at issue, any disagreement about those figures, and any request for attorneys’ fees. The court also required support for any non-disparagement provision and warned that it would likely not approve confidentiality provisions or general releases from all liability.
The court also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having future proceedings handled by the assigned magistrate judge. Judge Alison J. Nathan said the parties could refuse consent without negative consequences, and adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. City of New York · No. 1:16-cv-08719
- Stewart Aaron
- July 9, 2021
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or describe the underlying claims in detail.
Settlement review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the court stated that it must review and scrutinize the settlement agreement to ensure that it is fair before the settlement can take effect. The court therefore ordered the parties to submit the agreement and a joint letter explaining why the settlement should be approved by August 12, 2021.
The submission must address the considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; explain the method used to calculate the settlement amounts; list the plaintiffs’ hours worked and wages, with enough detail for the court to follow the calculations; and include both sides’ estimates if the parties disagree about hours or wages. Any request for attorneys’ fees must be supported by detailed billing records showing the hours worked and the nature of the work. If the proposed agreement includes a non-disparagement provision, the parties must provide authority and argument showing that the provision is fair and reasonable. The court also advised that it would likely not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability.
Consent to magistrate-judge proceedings
The court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned magistrate judge. If both consented, counsel were directed to file a completed consent and reference form. If either party did not consent, the parties had to file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the party or parties that withheld consent. The court stated that consent could be withheld without negative consequences. It also said that any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whether or not the parties consented.
Disposition
The court ordered the settlement materials and related explanations to be filed; it did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. It also adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.