Mercado v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Background

Jeffrey Mercado, Tyrone Pringle, Adam Roman, Kevin Knois, and Edward Kalanz sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. They alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., by failing to properly and timely pay overtime wages. The court had conditionally certified the matter as an FLSA collective action, and 456 additional plaintiffs opted in.

The parties reached a settlement and sought court approval. The court denied their first approval motion without prejudice on May 15, 2023. The opinion states that the earlier proposed agreement included an overly broad liability release and that the court denied the request for litigation costs because it lacked evidentiary support.

Settlement Approval

The parties submitted a revised settlement agreement and renewed motion. Under the FLSA, a settlement of wage claims generally requires approval by the Department of Labor or a district court. The court applied the standard requiring the settlement to be fair and reasonable, considering factors such as the possible recovery, the burdens and risks of continued litigation, the parties’ bargaining process, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

After reviewing excerpts of the supporting records, the docket, and the revised agreement, the court found that the settlement amounts were fair and reasonable and that the agreement satisfied the relevant factors. The court also determined that final certification of the collective action was not necessary to approve the settlement. It noted that all 456 opt-in plaintiffs had signed consent documents authorizing settlement of the specific FLSA claims, and that counsel had communicated the settlement details to them.

Release, Costs, and Service Awards

The revised release provision applied only to the defendants rather than to numerous additional entities, was limited to named plaintiffs who signed the settlement and to opt-in plaintiffs, and was mutual. The court found the revised release fair and reasonable.

The court had previously found the requested attorney’s fees reasonable. After counsel supplied documentation supporting the litigation costs, the court found the requested costs of $82,402.90 reasonable. The court also approved service awards of $12,500 for Mercado and $10,000 for each of the other four named plaintiffs, finding that the plaintiffs had taken personal risks and spent substantial time assisting with the litigation.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres granted the parties’ motion for settlement approval. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate pending motions, vacate conferences, and close the case. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement for one year.