Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 27, 2022

Morris v. Richmond Community Services Foundation, Inc.

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:22-cv-05618
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Morris v. Richmond County Services Foundation, Judge Parker approved a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Sandra Morris, Richmond County Services Foundation Inc., and Morris’s counsel were affected by the approved settlement and the court’s order discontinuing the action.

What happened

In Morris v. Richmond County Services Foundation, Sandra Morris brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and submitted their proposed settlement for court approval.

The court reviewed the proposed agreement and Morris’s explanation of why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It approved the settlement, including compensation for her claims and payment of her lawyer’s fees.

Judge Katharine H. Parker retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary, discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Morris v. Richmond Community Services Foundation, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05618
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Dec. 27, 2022

Background

Sandra Morris sued Richmond County Services Foundation Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case and, after reaching an agreement in principle, submitted a proposed settlement for approval.

Court’s Review and Ruling

Because FLSA settlements require judicial review, the court considered whether the proposed agreement was a reasonable compromise of Morris’s claims. After reviewing Morris’s submissions, including her letter explaining why the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, the court found that the agreement fairly addressed her claims and compensated her counsel for legal fees. The court approved the settlement.

The court also retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if necessary. As a result of approving the settlement, the court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs and directed the clerk to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.