Osorio v. Frant Hotel L.L.C.
- Ona Wang
- 1:20-cv-09583
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Osorio v. Frant Hotel, Judge Wang approved a $56,000 wage settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Tamar Osorio and Jamal McDaniel received $18,313.67 each under the approved settlement; their counsel received $19,372.66 for fees and costs. Frant Hotel L.L.C. and Alan Lapes were defendants, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Osorio v. Frant Hotel L.L.C., Tamar Osorio and Jamal McDaniel alleged that Frant Hotel L.L.C. and Alan Lapes failed to pay required minimum and overtime wages and violated other wage laws. The defendants disputed their allegations, including the hours worked and whether the plaintiffs were employees.
The parties agreed to settle all claims and asked the court to approve the agreement. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable after considering the possible recovery, the risks and costs of continuing the case, the parties’ negotiations, and the absence of evidence of fraud or collusion.
Judge Ona T. Wang approved the $56,000 settlement, including $18,313.67 for each plaintiff and $19,372.66 for the plaintiffs’ counsel for fees and costs. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, terminated the open motions, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Osorio v. Frant Hotel L.L.C. · No. 1:20-cv-09583
- Ona Wang
- Apr. 12, 2023
Background
Tamar Osorio and Jamal McDaniel sued Frant Hotel L.L.C. and Alan Lapes under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Osorio alleged that she worked substantially more hours than scheduled, including hours over the daily and weekly limits, but was paid flat amounts every two weeks. McDaniel similarly alleged that he worked more hours than scheduled and was paid flat amounts. The plaintiffs also alleged failures involving minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours wages, wage notices, wage statements, time records, and retaliation.
The defendants disputed the plaintiffs’ allegations. They disputed the dates and hours the plaintiffs claimed to have worked and disputed that the plaintiffs had been their former employees. The parties reached a settlement after a court-held settlement conference and asked the court to approve it.
Settlement-Approval Standard
Because the case included FLSA claims, the court applied the requirement that a court approve a settlement resolving those claims. The court evaluated whether the agreement was fair and reasonable by considering the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses of continuing the case, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and whether fraud or collusion was possible.
The total settlement was $56,000. Osorio would receive $18,313.67, and McDaniel would receive $18,313.67. The plaintiffs’ counsel would receive $19,372.66, consisting of $18,666.66 in attorneys’ fees and $706 in costs. Although the plaintiffs would receive less than half of the damages they claimed as their potential recovery, the court found the amount reasonable in light of the disputed facts and risks of litigation.
Other Settlement Terms
The court found that the release was limited to employment-related wage-and-hour claims through the date the agreement was signed. The agreement had no confidentiality provision. Its non-disparagement provision was mutual and allowed truthful statements. The court also found the requested fees and costs reasonable, noting that the fee request was below counsel’s stated calculation of the time-based value of the work.
Disposition
The court approved the parties’ proposed $56,000 settlement as fair and reasonable. It ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions, and closed the case. Judge Ona T. Wang signed the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.