Kovalev v. A.G. Consulting Engineering, P.C.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-05954
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kovalev v. A.G. Consulting Engineering, Judge Vyskocil ordered the parties to explain why their FLSA settlement was fair before approval.
The parties to the FLSA case—Ivan Kovalev, Mintiwab Hill, A.G. Consulting Engineering, P.C., and the other people represented by the plaintiffs—must submit a joint letter addressing the proposed settlement by May 11, 2023.
What happened
In Kovalev v. A.G. Consulting Engineering, P.C., Ivan Kovalev and Mintiwab Hill sued on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court was told that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues.
Because the case involved Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the court said it had to review and approve the settlement. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise, including information about possible recovery, litigation risks and costs, negotiations, possible fraud or collusion, any dispute about hours or compensation, and the attorney-fee request.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not approve the settlement in this order. Instead, she set a May 11, 2023 deadline for the joint letter and adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Kovalev v. A.G. Consulting Engineering, P.C. · No. 1:22-cv-05954
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
Ivan Kovalev and Mintiwab Hill brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing minimum wages, overtime, and related employment protections, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The mediator informed the court that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues.
Settlement Review
The court explained that an FLSA settlement requires approval by either the district court or the United States Department of Labor. The court must scrutinize the proposed agreement for fairness and determine whether it is a reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than an employer's overreaching waiver of statutory rights.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by May 11, 2023, addressing:
- the plaintiffs' possible range of recovery; - how the settlement would help the parties avoid anticipated burdens and expenses 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 letter also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the number of hours worked or the compensation owed, and how much the plaintiffs' attorney would seek in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the parties to provide the requested explanation. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement. All other dates and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.