Bracey v. Wainstein
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-10356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bracey v. Wainstein, Judge Vyskocil reopened the case for review of the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Chawntane Bracey and defendants Daniel Wainstein and Jennifer Wainstein, whose proposed settlement remained subject to court review and approval.
What happened
In Bracey v. Wainstein, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle. The court had initially discontinued the case without costs and without prejudice.
Because the complaint included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court said it must review and approve the settlement. It reopened the case and required a joint letter by December 29, 2022, explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil directed the parties to address possible recovery, litigation burdens and risks, bargaining, fraud or collusion, disputed hours or compensation, and the requested attorney fees. The order did not approve or reject the settlement.
The detailed version
- Bracey v. Wainstein · No. 1:19-cv-10356
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 29, 2022
Background
The parties informed the court on October 20, 2022, that they had reached a settlement in principle. The same day, the court entered a 30-day order discontinuing the case without costs to any party and without prejudice.
The complaint asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters including minimum wages, overtime, and related employment protections. The court explained that settlements of such claims require approval by either the district court or the United States Department of Labor. The court must examine the settlement for fairness.
Order
The court ordered that the case be reopened pending its review of the proposed settlement. It ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by December 29, 2022, explaining why the settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than an improper waiver of statutory rights caused by an employer’s overreaching.
The letter was required to address:
- the plaintiff’s possible range of recovery; - the burdens and expenses the settlement would help the parties avoid in proving their claims and defenses; - the seriousness of the litigation risks; - whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel; and - the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The parties also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much of the settlement the plaintiff’s attorney would seek as fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
The Clerk of Court was requested to reopen the action and terminate the letter motion at docket entry 59. The order did not decide whether to approve the proposed settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.