Perossio v. Pure Growth Consulting, LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:18-cv-01946-BCM
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perossio v. Pure Growth, Judge Moses vacated deadlines and required a fairness submission for the parties’ settled FLSA dispute.
The parties to the settled dispute and their counsel, including anyone seeking an award of attorney’s fees and costs.
What happened
In Perossio v. Pure Growth Consulting, LLC, the parties told the court that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They had also agreed that Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses could handle the remaining proceedings.
The court vacated all previously set deadlines and ordered the parties to submit a joint explanation supporting the settlement, the signed settlement agreement, and certain records supporting any request for attorney’s fees and costs by December 21, 2022.
Judge Barbara Moses cautioned that wage-and-hour settlements generally should not include improper confidentiality terms, overbroad non-disparagement provisions, or one-sided general releases. She also stated that the court would review the reasonableness of any attorney’s fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Perossio v. Pure Growth Consulting, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-01946-BCM
- Barbara Moses
- Nov. 21, 2022
Background
The parties reported that they had settled their dispute, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They then consented to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses’s authority over all remaining proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Court’s orders
The court vacated all deadlines previously set in the action. It ordered the parties to submit, by December 21, 2022, three items: (1) a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; (2) a copy of the written settlement agreement, signed by all parties, for filing on the public docket; and (3) any contingency-fee agreement and time-and-expense records needed to support an award of attorney’s fees and costs.
Settlement cautions
The court cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in wage-and-hour settlements because of the policies underlying the FLSA. It also cautioned that a non-disparagement clause should not prevent the plaintiff from making truthful statements about the employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement. In addition, the court stated that courts in the district ordinarily refuse to approve FLSA settlements containing one-sided or overly broad general releases.
The court further explained that its fairness review includes the reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs. Any proposed fee award had to be included in the written settlement agreement, personally signed by the parties, supported by properly authenticated records, and accompanied by a detailed explanation. The opinion ordered these submissions and cautions; it did not state the settlement terms or enter an approval of the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.