Haider v. Swagat Restaurant, Inc.
- Debra Freeman
- 1:21-cv-09394
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Haider v. Swagat Restaurant, Judge Furman ordered the parties to submit their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement for fairness review, without approving it.
The parties to the FLSA case, their attorneys, the proposed settlement, and the case’s scheduled conference and deadlines.
What happened
In Haider v. Swagat Restaurant, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle of the plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
The court ordered the parties to submit their settlement agreement and a joint explanation by February 28, 2022. The explanation must address why the proposed settlement is fair, as well as any incentive payment or attorney’s fee. The court also described provisions it generally would not approve, including broad confidentiality, unrelated claim releases, and certain non-disparagement clauses.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not approve the settlement. He adjourned the scheduled conference and other deadlines without setting a new date, and ordered plaintiff’s counsel to serve Swagat Restaurant, Inc. with the order and ensure that its counsel appears.
The detailed version
- Haider v. Swagat Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09394
- Debra Freeman
- Feb. 15, 2022
Background
The plaintiff brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing matters including overtime pay. The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The order did not decide whether the defendants violated the FLSA and did not approve the proposed settlement.
Settlement-review requirements
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by February 28, 2022. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and, if the parties intend to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable. The parties must address any payment to the plaintiff for serving as an incentive and any attorney’s fee award, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court reminded the parties that they could consent to have the assigned Magistrate Judge decide whether to approve the settlement. It also stated that it would not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision without case-specific justification; a release of unaccrued claims or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters without case-specific justification; or a non-disparagement provision that lacked an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, absent case-specific justification. If the agreement contained such provisions, the parties had to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with those provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the agreement but could not rewrite it.
Other orders and disposition
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 18, 2022, along with all pending deadlines, without setting a new date. Because counsel for Swagat Restaurant, Inc. had not yet appeared, the court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to serve Swagat with the order within two business days and file proof of service. Swagat’s counsel was ordered to file notices of appearance immediately afterward.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered further submissions and related procedural steps; he did not grant final approval of the settlement or enter a dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.