Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Ramirez v. Marriott International: Judge Halpern denied without prejudice the parties’ motion to approve an FLSA settlement because its release and confidentiality terms were improper.
The ruling affected plaintiff Humberto Ramirez, opt-in plaintiff Boateng, the defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel by preventing approval of the proposed settlement in its submitted form and requiring additional support for any substitute motion and fee application.
What happened
In Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc., the parties asked the Southern District of New York to approve a proposed settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The court reviewed the settlement under the standards governing FLSA settlements.
The court identified three problems. The proposed release covered claims far beyond those involved in the case, and a provision would have limited Ramirez and opt-in plaintiff Boateng to saying only that the matter had been amicably resolved. The court also said plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees required additional support, including justification for an award approximating 66% of the total class recovery and information supporting the time-based fee calculation.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the parties’ joint motion to approve the settlement without prejudice. He directed counsel to provide the requested support with any substitute settlement motion and said the attorneys’ fee application would be considered separately.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-02397
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 8, 2022
Background
The parties jointly moved for approval of a proposed settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which establishes federal wage-and-hour protections. The court reviewed the parties’ submissions under the settlement-review standards discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Reasons for Denial
The court found that Section 4.1 of the proposed settlement contained an overly broad release. It would have released the defendants from the claims involved in the case and from any other federal, state, local, or common-law claim based on events occurring from the beginning of time through the settlement’s final effective date. The court stated that an FLSA settlement release must be limited to the claims at issue in the action.
The court also found that Section 5.4 improperly restricted the plaintiffs’ ability to discuss the litigation. That provision said that plaintiff Ramirez and opt-in plaintiff Boateng could state only that the matter had been amicably resolved if asked about it. The court cited authority requiring an FLSA settlement to allow plaintiffs to openly discuss their experience litigating a wage-and-hour case.
Attorneys’ Fees
The court said it would consider plaintiffs’ counsel’s attorneys’ fee application separately from any substitute settlement-approval motion, consistent with Section 3.4(B) of the proposed agreement. Counsel was directed to supplement the fee application with additional authority supporting an award approximating 66% of the total class recovery generated by 41 separate timekeepers. Counsel also had to provide the factual information needed to support the time-based fee calculation, including detailed time entries for each timekeeper, task summaries, information about each timekeeper’s skill and experience, and counsel’s retainer agreement.
Disposition
For these reasons, Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the parties’ joint motion to approve the settlement without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 131.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.