Melendez v. Cosan Construction Corp.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-07426
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Melendez v. Cosan Construction Corp., Judge Moses ordered the parties to submit materials supporting approval of their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Hector Melendez, Cosan Construction Corp., the other defendants, and their counsel were required to provide materials for the court’s review of the proposed FLSA settlement and any attorneys’ fees and costs.
What happened
In Melendez v. Cosan Construction Corp., the parties told the court they had agreed in principle to settle claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
The court ordered them to submit by April 14, 2023, a joint explanation showing that the settlement was fair and reasonable, the signed settlement agreement, and records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Moses cautioned that confidentiality terms, broad releases, and non-disparagement provisions may prevent approval of a wage-and-hour settlement, and emphasized that the court had not approved the settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- Melendez v. Cosan Construction Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-07426
- Barbara Moses
- Mar. 17, 2023
Background
The action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for settlement approval. The parties reported that they had agreed in principle to settle claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour statute.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit, by April 14, 2023:
- A joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable under the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.;
- A written settlement agreement signed by all parties, which would be placed on the public docket; and
- Any contingency-fee agreement and counsel’s time and expense records needed to support an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Settlement Terms and Fees
Judge Moses cautioned that confidentiality provisions are rarely appropriate in FLSA settlements because of the policy concerns underlying the statute. The court also warned that a non-disparagement clause may be unacceptable if it prevents the plaintiff from making truthful statements about his employment, the lawsuit, or the settlement.
The court further stated that it ordinarily will not approve one-way or overly broad general releases in FLSA settlements. Its fairness review also includes the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs. Any proposed fee award must appear in the written settlement agreement, which must be personally signed by the parties, and must be supported by properly authenticated fee and expense records and a detailed explanation of the award.
Disposition
The order required further submissions for review of the proposed settlement. It did not approve or reject the settlement, and it did not decide the underlying FLSA claims. The parties were also reminded that they could unanimously consent to Magistrate Judge Moses’s jurisdiction, in which case she could issue an order on their joint motion and enter judgment rather than issue a recommendation for review by the district judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.