Quituisaca Tapia v. Nations Roof East LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-01358
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Quituisaca Tapia v. Nations Roof East, Judge Moses approved a $50,000 settlement resolving the plaintiff’s wage claims under federal and New York law.
Digno Quituisaca Tapia and the defendants named in the caption, whose wage dispute is resolved under the approved settlement.
What happened
In Digno Quituisaca Tapia v. Nations Roof East, LLC, et al., the court reviewed the parties’ request to approve a settlement of Tapia’s wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The agreement requires the defendants to pay $50,000, including $16,500 for attorney fees and costs and $33,500 for Tapia.
The court found the payment fair despite being lower than Tapia’s claimed unpaid wages, which his counsel estimated could reach $77,725. The parties disputed how much time Tapia spent driving a company van between the defendants’ premises and jobsites. The agreement also includes mutual releases, a two-year limit on rehire by the two defendant companies, a non-disparagement provision allowing truthful statements about the case, neutral employment references, and the attorney-fee payment.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the parties’ joint request and approved the settlement. The defendants must promptly pay the settlement after the order, and the parties must file a joint stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice within five days thereafter for the court to approve.
The detailed version
- Quituisaca Tapia v. Nations Roof East LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01358
- Barbara Moses
- June 10, 2022
Background
Digno Quituisaca Tapia brought wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law, and related regulations. The parties jointly asked the court to approve their amended, signed settlement agreement under the requirement that certain FLSA settlements receive judicial review. The financial terms resulted from arm’s-length negotiations during a judicially supervised settlement conference.
Settlement Terms
The defendants collectively agreed to pay $50,000. Of that amount, $16,500 would reimburse Tapia’s counsel for attorney fees and costs, leaving $33,500 for Tapia. The fee award equals 33% of the total settlement and 1.87 times counsel’s reported lodestar, meaning the amount based on counsel’s documented time and hourly rates.
The court noted that the settlement was below Tapia’s claimed unpaid wages, which counsel estimated at up to $77,725. The court nevertheless found the amount fair and reasonable because the parties sharply disputed the amount of time Tapia spent driving a company van between the defendants’ premises and various jobsites, creating litigation risks that could have prevented him from recovering the claimed amount.
The agreement includes mutual general releases covering claims connected to the parties’ employment relationship or its termination. It also includes a two-year provision waiving Tapia’s right to seek reinstatement with the two defendant companies, a mutual non-disparagement provision with an exception for truthful statements about the claims and defenses in the case, and the defendants’ agreement to provide neutral employment references.
Ruling and Effect
The court found the financial and non-financial terms fair and reasonable. It therefore granted the parties’ joint request and approved the proposed settlement. The order directs the defendants to make the payment promptly after entry of the order. Within five days thereafter, the parties must file a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice for the court to approve. The order itself did not decide whether the defendants violated the wage laws; it approved the negotiated resolution.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court approved a settlement rather than deciding the underlying wage claims on their merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.