Radosti v. Hudson's Bay Company
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-12266
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Radosti v. Hudson’s Bay Company, Judge Broderick denied without prejudice approval of an FLSA settlement because its release and fee support were inadequate.
Bina Radosti and the defendants, Hudson’s Bay Company and Lord & Taylor LLC, were affected by the denial of approval of their proposed settlement. The ruling required them to revise the agreement or proceed toward trial.
What happened
Bina Radosti sued Hudson’s Bay Company and Lord & Taylor LLC, alleging unpaid wages, discrimination based on gender and age, wrongful termination, and retaliation. The parties asked the court to approve a settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York law, and New York City law.
The court found that the proposed settlement’s release was too broad because it covered wage-related claims beyond this case, including possible future claims. The court also found that the requested $20,000 in attorneys’ fees was unsupported because counsel did not provide billing records or other evidence showing that the amount was reasonable.
In Radosti v. Hudson’s Bay Company, Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied without prejudice the parties’ request to approve the settlement. He allowed them either to submit a revised settlement addressing these problems or to notify the court that they would abandon settlement and proceed to the scheduled trial.
The detailed version
- Radosti v. Hudson's Bay Company · No. 1:18-cv-12266
- Vernon Broderick
- June 8, 2022
Background
Bina Radosti brought claims against Hudson’s Bay Company, doing business as Lord & Taylor, and Lord & Taylor LLC. She alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Her claims concerned unpaid wages, gender and age discrimination, wrongful termination, and retaliation.
The parties told the court they had reached a settlement and jointly asked the court to approve it. Because the FLSA claims could not be privately settled without approval from the court or the Department of Labor, the court reviewed whether the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable. A jury trial was scheduled to begin on June 29, 2022.
Reasons for the Decision
The court rejected the proposed release provision. The provision required Radosti to release all known and unknown wage-and-hour claims against the defendants, whether asserted or unasserted, including claims unrelated to the facts of this case and claims that might arise in the future. The court concluded that the release was not limited to the claims being resolved in this action and had no time or date restrictions. It therefore did not meet the standards for approving an FLSA settlement.
The proposed agreement also allocated $20,000 to attorneys’ fees. Radosti’s counsel did not provide billing records or other factual evidence supporting that amount. Counsel argued that the fees were reasonable because they equaled one-third of Radosti’s recovery and represented only a small portion of the time spent on the litigation. The court held that those explanations were insufficient without evidence showing the work performed and the basis for the requested fee.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick found that the proposed settlement was not fair and reasonable and denied without prejudice the parties’ request for approval. The court directed the parties, by June 15, 2022, either to submit a revised proposed settlement curing the release and fee deficiencies or to file a joint letter stating that they intended to abandon settlement and continue to trial.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.