Gorga v. City of New York
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-08638
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gorga v. City of New York, Judge Rearden set requirements for reviewing the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
The three plaintiffs, Michael Gorga, Demetrius McFadden, and Kevin Ryan, and the City of New York, whose Fair Labor Standards Act settlement was subject to court review.
What happened
In Gorga v. City of New York, the plaintiffs and the City told the court that they had reached a settlement of the plaintiffs’ overtime-pay claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court explained that employers violating overtime rules may owe unpaid wages plus an equal amount as additional damages.
The court said it must review the settlement, including any proposed attorney-fee award, for fairness before approving a settlement and dismissal. It also warned that it would not approve confidentiality terms, overly broad releases, or certain non-disparagement provisions unless the parties showed case-specific reasons supporting them.
The order did not approve or reject the settlement. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden gave the parties until April 28, 2023, to consent to review by the assigned Magistrate Judge or to file a joint letter addressing any prohibited provision.
The detailed version
- Gorga v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-08638
- Sarah Netburn
- Apr. 13, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs and the City of New York told the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The statute requires an employer that violates overtime-pay requirements to pay the unpaid overtime and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.
Settlement review
The court explained that when parties settle Fair Labor Standards Act claims and seek dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must examine the settlement—including any proposed attorney-fee award—to ensure that it is fair. The order stated that the parties could instead consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. If all parties chose that option, they were directed to file a completed consent form by April 28, 2023.
The court also advised that it would not approve a settlement containing certain provisions unless the parties showed case-specific reasons supporting them. These provisions included confidentiality terms that lacked sufficient justification; releases or waivers covering claims that had not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters; and non-disparagement clauses that barred negative statements without an exception for truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience litigating the case.
If the settlement contained any of those provisions, the parties were directed by April 28, 2023, to file a joint letter stating whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with the provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the settlement but could not rewrite the agreement itself.
Disposition
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden issued instructions for the settlement-review process. This order did not approve or reject the settlement, enter a dismissal, or decide the underlying overtime claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.