Pacifico Reveliu v. 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-01943
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Pacifico Reveliu v. 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC: Judge Broderick approved the parties’ revised Fair Labor Standards Act settlement after finding its terms fair and reasonable.
Fernanda Pacifico Reveliu and the defendants, including 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC, whose revised settlement agreement was approved.
What happened
In Pacifico Reveliu v. 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC, the parties told the court they had settled the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court was required to review the agreement because the parties had not obtained approval from the Department of Labor.
The court had previously found that an earlier agreement was not fair and reasonable because its non-disparagement provision was too broad. The revised agreement kept a non-disparagement provision but allowed the plaintiff to make truthful statements about her involvement in the case. The court had already found that the $65,000 settlement, including attorneys’ fees and expenses, and the $21,730.38 attorneys’ fee award were fair and reasonable.
Judge Broderick independently reviewed the revised agreement and supporting evidence. He found the revised terms fair, reasonable, and adequate, granted the parties’ request for approval, and approved the settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Pacifico Reveliu v. 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01943
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 25, 2022
Background
Fernanda Pacifico Reveliu brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case against 910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC and other defendants. The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement. Because the parties had not obtained Department of Labor approval, the court was required to determine whether the settlement was fair and reasonable before approving it.
The parties initially submitted settlement materials after the court’s July 16, 2021 order. They later submitted a revised agreement because of the defendants’ changing financial situation. On January 7, 2022, the court found that the earlier proposed agreement was not fair and reasonable because its non-disparagement provision was overbroad.
Settlement Terms
The revised agreement provided for a total settlement of $65,000, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and expenses. The court incorporated its earlier findings that the settlement amount was fair and reasonable and that attorneys’ fees of $21,730.38—representing one-third of the settlement fund after $418.49 in costs—were fair and reasonable.
The revised agreement’s non-disparagement provision barred Pacifico Reveliu, and anyone acting at her direction, from engaging in conduct intended to disparage the released parties. It also barred her from defaming or inducing others to disparage or defame them. Unlike the earlier agreement, however, the revised provision stated that she could make truthful statements about her involvement in the litigation.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court explained that FLSA claims generally cannot be privately settled with prejudice without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. The court independently reviewed the revised settlement agreement and the supporting evidence. It found that the truthful-statements exception made the non-disparagement provision fair and reasonable.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick found the revised settlement terms fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court granted the parties’ request to approve the agreement and ordered that the settlement agreement be approved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.