Morales v. Fross, Zelnick, Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-04509
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Morales v. Fross, Judge Halpern approved the parties’ $5,000 Fair Labor Standards Act settlement as fair and reasonable.
Gayle Morales and the defendants, including Fross, Zelnick, Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.; the order approved their settlement and directed them to file a dismissal with prejudice.
What happened
In Morales v. Fross, the parties in a wage-and-hour case submitted a proposed settlement requiring a total payment of $5,000. The opinion does not describe the underlying wage claims in detail.
The court reviewed the agreement under the standard requiring settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims to be fair and reasonable. It found that the amount was reasonable considering the costs and delays of further litigation and that the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations. The agreement contained no confidentiality, nondisclosure, or nondisparagement provisions, and its release was limited to wage-related claims.
Judge Philip M. Halpern approved the proposed settlement. Because the plaintiffs’ attorneys would receive no fees from the settlement, the court did not separately evaluate a fee award. The parties were directed to file a signed stipulation and order dismissing the case with prejudice by December 8, 2021.
The detailed version
- Morales v. Fross, Zelnick, Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. · No. 7:21-cv-04509
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 6, 2021
Background
Gayle Morales and the defendants submitted a joint letter and proposed settlement agreement in this wage-and-hour case. The agreement provided for a total settlement payment of $5,000.
Legal standard
The court applied the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires a court or the Department of Labor to approve an FLSA settlement. Under the standard cited by the court, the settlement must be fair and reasonable. Relevant considerations include the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the costs and burdens of continued litigation, the parties’ litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.
Analysis
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the court found that the agreement was a fair and reasonable resolution of the dispute. It concluded that the $5,000 payment was reasonable when measured against the costs and delays of further litigation and reflected an arm’s-length agreement. The court did not assess whether an attorney-fee award was fair and reasonable because Morales’s attorneys would receive no fees from the settlement.
The agreement contained no confidentiality, nondisclosure, or nondisparagement provisions. The court also found that its release provision was appropriately limited to wage-related claims.
Disposition
The court approved the proposed settlement agreement. The parties were directed to file a fully executed stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice by December 8, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.