Berry v. Mediacom Communications Corporation
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-05183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Berry v. Mediacom, Judge Vyskocil denied without prejudice approval of a wage settlement because the parties did not provide enough support.
Elizabeth Berry, the proposed class, Mediacom Communications Corp., and Berry’s attorney were affected because the proposed settlement was not approved and the parties were required to submit more information.
What happened
In Berry v. Mediacom Communications Corp., Elizabeth Berry brought a proposed class action against her former employer, alleging that it did not pay workers for time spent starting their computers and did not keep records required by state law. She asserted claims under federal wage law, Iowa law, contract law, and unjust-enrichment law.
The parties reached an early settlement under which Berry would receive $2,000 and her attorney would receive $5,500. The court said the parties had not provided enough information about the negotiations, possible recovery, likelihood of success, or the employer’s potential exposure. The attorney also did not provide sufficiently detailed billing records or the retainer agreement.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied approval of the settlement without prejudice to submitting a properly supported request. She ordered the parties to submit an amended request for approval by December 15, 2022.
The detailed version
- Berry v. Mediacom Communications Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-05183
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 15, 2022
Background
Elizabeth Berry brought a proposed class action against her former employer, Mediacom Communications Corp., a cable television provider. She alleged that Mediacom failed to pay her and other workers for the few minutes they spent each morning starting their computers. She also alleged that Mediacom failed to comply with state recordkeeping requirements.
Berry asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law, breach-of-contract law, and unjust-enrichment law. Rather than continue with extended litigation, the parties agreed to an early settlement.
Settlement and Court Review
The proposed settlement would pay Berry $2,000 and her attorney $5,500, for a total payout of $7,500. The court explained that FLSA settlements must be approved by either the court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore had to examine whether the settlement was fair.
The court said the parties’ submission did not provide enough information to conduct that review. It did not explain the negotiation process, Berry’s maximum possible recovery, or the likelihood that she would succeed. It stated only that the parties disputed whether Berry worked without pay for up to ten minutes each day. The court also found that the submission did not explain the employer’s potential exposure to Berry or the proposed class, or provide the information needed to evaluate the wage calculations.
Attorney Fees
The court also found that the information supporting the attorney’s $5,500 fee request was inadequate. Counsel listed tasks and reported 17.6 billable hours but used block billing, which grouped work together rather than identifying the time spent on each task. The court said this prevented meaningful review of whether the hours were reasonable. Counsel also did not provide the retainer agreement or describe its relevant terms.
The requested fees and costs represented more than 70 percent of the $7,500 total payout. The court noted that the Second Circuit had previously identified potential abuse in FLSA settlements involving substantial attorney fees unsupported by adequate documentation. On the information submitted, the court could not approve the fee request.
Disposition
The court denied approval of the settlement without prejudice to renewal with proper supporting information. It ordered the parties to submit an amended request for judicial approval by December 15, 2022. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not decide the underlying wage claims or determine the proper amount of any recovery.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.