Flores v. Boro Concrete Corp.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-05006
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Flores v. Boro Concrete, Judge Furman required the parties to submit their proposed FLSA settlement for fairness review.
The plaintiffs, Boro Concrete Corp., the other defendants, and their attorneys were affected because they had to submit the proposed settlement and supporting explanation for court review.
What happened
In Flores v. Boro Concrete Corp., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle in a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal wage law.
The court explained that a settlement of overtime claims generally must be reviewed for fairness, including any proposed payment of lawyers’ fees, before the case is dismissed under Rule 41. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or approve it.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by April 28, 2022. He also directed them to address any incentive payments, lawyers’ fees, confidentiality terms, broad releases, and restrictions on negative statements, and said the court would not approve certain provisions without case-specific justification.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Boro Concrete Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-05006
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 14, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action against Boro Concrete Corp. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law that requires overtime pay in qualifying circumstances. The parties informed the court by letter filed April 13, 2022, that they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court explained that, when FLSA claims are settled and dismissed under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement must be reviewed to determine whether it is fair. The review also includes any proposed award of attorneys’ fees. The opinion states that an offer of judgment under Rule 68(a) is an exception to the usual judicial-approval requirement.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by April 28, 2022. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable, referring to the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. The parties must also address any incentive payments to the plaintiffs and any proposed attorneys’ fee award, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court stated that it would not approve an agreement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public-access right applicable to judicial documents. It also would not approve a release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific justification. A provision restricting negative statements about a defendant would need an exception for truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless the parties justified omitting that exception.
If the agreement contained any of those provisions, the parties had to state whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provisions removed. The court noted, however, that it could approve or reject the agreement but could not modify the agreement itself. The order did not approve the settlement or dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.