Martinez v. Avalanche Construction Group Inc
- James Cott
- 1:20-cv-11065
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Martinez v. Avalanche Construction, Judge Cott approved the wage-law settlements after striking their social-media restriction and dismissed A&P Quality Construction, Inc. from the case.
The plaintiffs and the defendants who entered the settlement agreements are affected by the approval and by the removal of the social-media restriction. A&P Quality Construction, Inc. was dismissed from the case.
What happened
Martinez v. Avalanche Construction Group Inc. was a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties asked the court to approve two settlement agreements and the related allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court found the settlement terms fair and reasonable overall. It ruled that the agreements could restrict plaintiffs from affirmatively contacting print media about the settlements, but could not restrict their use of social media because that could broadly limit discussion of their experiences and workers’ rights.
Judge James L. Cott struck and declared unenforceable the social-media portion of the restriction, while approving the rest of the settlements. He also dismissed A&P Quality Construction, Inc., which had not appeared, and directed the clerk to mark the parties’ motions granted except for the social-media restriction and to close the case.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Avalanche Construction Group Inc · No. 1:20-cv-11065
- James Cott
- Oct. 28, 2021
Background
The parties in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) wage-and-hour case submitted a joint fairness letter-motion and two executed settlement agreements for court approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House. The parties had consented to Judge Cott’s jurisdiction as a United States magistrate judge. An amended motion added a missing page to one exhibit.
Settlement Review
The court reviewed the proposed agreements, including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs. It found that all terms appeared fair and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, except for part of paragraph 5 in each agreement. That paragraph stated that the plaintiffs would not publicly publicize the terms or existence of the agreement in print media or on social media.
The court held that the restriction on affirmative contact with print media was permissible. The restriction did not prevent plaintiffs from discussing the settlement with colleagues and friends, limited contact with print media only regarding the settlement itself, and did not prevent plaintiffs from responding truthfully to media inquiries about their litigation experience, including acknowledging the settlement.
The court reached a different conclusion about social media. It found that limiting plaintiffs’ use of social media imposed a substantial burden on their ability to discuss the lawsuit and settlement with friends, colleagues, and family. The court also found the term “publicize” unclear and potentially broad. Because each agreement contained a severability provision, the court struck the social-media restriction and deemed that portion unenforceable.
Other Disposition
The plaintiffs advised the court that A&P Quality Construction, Inc. had not appeared and that they consented to its dismissal. The court dismissed A&P Quality Construction, Inc. and stated that it would sign the parties’ stipulation of voluntary dismissal.
Order
Judge James L. Cott approved the proposed settlement agreements except for the social-media restriction in paragraph 5. He directed the clerk to mark Docket Nos. 38 and 40 as “granted (except as to paragraph 5 with respect to social media)” and to close the case. The court’s approval of the attorneys’ fee allocation was not an approval of plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rate.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.