Sanchez-Torres v. Sanchez
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-04222
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sanchez-Torres v. Sanchez, Judge Broderick approved the parties’ revised Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and terminated the case.
Jessica Sanchez-Torres and the defendants, including Filadelfo Sanchez, whose revised settlement agreement was approved and whose case was terminated.
What happened
In Sanchez-Torres v. Sanchez, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court had rejected two earlier proposed agreements because one had an overly broad release and the other barred the plaintiff from future employment with the company or released parties.
The plaintiff then submitted a third agreement with the reemployment-ban paragraph removed. The parties explained that the plaintiff and defense counsel had initialed the change and that both parties had authorized their attorneys to make it. The court had previously found that the $30,000 settlement and $10,000 in attorneys’ fees were fair and reasonable.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick independently reviewed the revised agreement and supporting materials and found the terms fair, reasonable, and adequate. He approved the settlement, vacated the scheduled status conference as unnecessary, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case.
The detailed version
- Sanchez-Torres v. Sanchez · No. 1:19-cv-04222
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 9, 2022
Background
The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. Because the parties had not obtained approval from the Department of Labor, the court reviewed the proposed settlement to determine whether it was fair and reasonable.
The parties had previously submitted two proposed settlement agreements. The court rejected the first because it contained an overly broad release clause. The court rejected the second because it included a provision stating that the plaintiff could not seek future employment with the company or the released parties. The court explained that courts in the district consistently reject FLSA settlements that prevent a plaintiff from having a future employment relationship with the defendant because those restrictions conflict with the FLSA’s remedial purpose.
Third Proposed Agreement
On February 8, 2022, the plaintiff filed a third proposed settlement agreement. It was the same as the second agreement except that the reemployment-ban provision had been crossed out by hand. The initials “DR 1/27/22” and “RD 2-7-22” appeared beside the deleted paragraph. The court asked the parties to explain the change and identify the initials. The parties responded that the initials belonged to the plaintiff and defense counsel and that both parties had authorized their attorneys to remove the provision.
The opinion states that the court had previously found the $30,000 settlement amount and $10,000 in attorneys’ fees fair and reasonable. The court independently reviewed the third proposed agreement and the supporting evidence.
Ruling
The court found the revised settlement terms fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judge Vernon S. Broderick therefore approved the parties’ settlement agreement. He vacated the February 15, 2022 status conference as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.