Harper v. Princeton International Properties Corp.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-01677
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harper v. Princeton International Properties Corp., Judge Furman required the parties to submit their proposed FLSA settlement for fairness review.
Wayne Harper, Princeton International Properties Corp., the other defendants, and their counsel were required to address the proposed FLSA settlement and any attorney’s fees or incentive payment before seeking court approval.
What happened
Wayne Harper sued Princeton International Properties Corp. and others under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wage and overtime pay. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court had not yet approved the settlement. It ordered the parties to submit the agreement and a joint explanation of why the proposed settlement, attorney’s fees, and any incentive payment would be fair and reasonable.
Judge Jesse M. Furman set a June 29, 2022 deadline for those materials and warned that certain confidentiality, broad-release, and non-disparagement provisions generally would not be approved. He also adjourned the scheduled pretrial conference and all pending deadlines.
The detailed version
- Harper v. Princeton International Properties Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-01677
- Sarah Netburn
- June 15, 2022
Background
The parties advised the court by letter that they had reached a settlement in principle in Wayne Harper’s action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires covered employers that violate overtime-pay rules to pay unpaid overtime and an equal amount as additional damages.
Court’s Analysis
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. That review includes any proposed award of attorney’s fees. The order cited factors concerning the fairness and reasonableness of FLSA settlements and the reasonableness of attorney’s fees.
The court also stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the public’s common-law right of access to court documents. It likewise would not approve an overbroad release or waiver covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties justified it with case-specific reasons. A non-disparagement clause would also need to allow truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, unless the parties justified omitting that exception.
Order
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by June 29, 2022. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why dismissal under Rule 41, if contemplated, should be approved as fair and reasonable. It must also address any incentive payment to Wayne Harper and any attorney’s fee award to his counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate.
The parties could instead consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned magistrate judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. If the agreement contained one of the provisions described above, the parties had to state whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with those provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the settlement but could not rewrite the agreement. The scheduled July 6, 2022 pretrial conference and all pending deadlines were adjourned. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.