Hernandez v. Uzzal Express Pizzeria Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-00177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hernandez v. Uzzal Pizzeria, Inc., Judge Engelmayer approved the parties’ revised wage-settlement agreement and closed the case.
The approved settlement affects Eduardo Hernandez and defendants Uzzal Pizzeria, Inc. and Mohammed Uzzal.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Uzzal Pizzeria, Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court had previously rejected an earlier agreement because its general release was too broad.
The revised agreement limited the release to wage claims under those laws brought in this case. It also excluded several types of claims, including claims for unpaid commissions, bonuses, tips, benefits, and improper deductions. The court found the agreement’s fee allocation, truthful-statement exception to its non-disparagement provision, and lack of confidentiality provision permissible.
Judge Engelmayer concluded that the revised agreement was reached through fair procedures and was fair and reasonable. He approved the agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Uzzal Express Pizzeria Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00177
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 4, 2022
Background
Eduardo Hernandez and the defendants, Uzzal Pizzeria, Inc. and Mohammed Uzzal, submitted a proposed settlement in an action asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The parties first submitted an agreement on February 25, 2022, and refiled it on March 23, 2022, after correcting a filing error.
On April 6, 2022, the court rejected that earlier agreement because its general release extended beyond the wage claims at issue. The court directed the parties to submit a revised agreement, which they filed on April 29, 2022.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that private settlement of FLSA claims with prejudice requires approval by either the district court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore had to determine whether the revised agreement was fair and reasonable. It also separately reviewed the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s attorney-fee allocation.
The court found permissible the revised agreement’s attorney-fee allocation, its exception allowing truthful statements within the non-disparagement provision, and its lack of a confidentiality provision. The court also found the revised general release permissible because it covered only known and unknown claims arising under the FLSA or NYLL that were brought in this action. The release excluded claims for unpaid commissions, bonuses, tips, fringe benefits, accrued deductions, and improper deductions.
Disposition
Judge Engelmayer concluded that the revised agreement was reached through procedurally fair means and was fair and reasonable under the governing standard. The court approved the Revised Agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.