Rojas v. Kaleo Construction Corp.
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-00199
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rojas v. Kaleo Construction, Judge Rearden ordered changes or justification for broad releases in the proposed wage-settlement agreement.
Jorge Rojas, Kaleo Construction Corp., Andrew Hazantonis, and the similarly situated people whom Rojas seeks to represent.
What happened
In Rojas v. Kaleo Construction Corp., Jorge Rojas and the defendants submitted a proposed settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The proposed agreement included releases and waivers concerning labor-law claims and participation in other class or group cases.
The court had previously asked for information about whether the settlement was fair and reasonable. It found that the agreement was not expressly limited to wage-and-hour claims, despite Rojas’s response suggesting that non-wage claims could be removed.
Judge Rearden ordered the parties to file by July 25 either a revised agreement limited to wage-and-hour claims or a joint letter, supported by relevant case law, explaining why broader provisions were justified. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
The detailed version
- Rojas v. Kaleo Construction Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-00199
- Rearden
- July 11, 2023
Background
Jorge Rojas brought this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing wages and working conditions. On February 6, 2023, the parties filed a proposed settlement agreement.
On May 11, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to provide additional information to help evaluate whether the agreement was fair and reasonable. The Court stated that it would not approve an agreement containing a release or waiver of claims that had not accrued or were unrelated to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific reasons for such a broad release.
Release and waiver provisions
In response, Rojas stated that the agreement did not release non-wage-and-hour claims. He also stated that, if the Court believed the agreement contained provisions of that kind, the parties agreed that the Court could remove them.
The Court found that the agreement’s release and waiver provisions were not expressly limited to wage-and-hour claims. For example, Section C.2 stated that Rojas would waive rights to become, and promise not to become, a member of any class or FLSA collective action asserting labor-law claims against the defendants. The same section waived rights to participate in or file class claims in a proceeding brought under any labor law. Section C.1 released the defendants from any labor-law claims that Rojas had brought or could have brought in this action.
Ruling
Judge Rearden ordered the parties to file by July 25, 2023, either (1) a revised proposed settlement agreement limiting the release and waiver provisions to wage-and-hour claims, or (2) a joint letter justifying broader provisions, particularly the references to labor law. The Court required any such letter to include relevant case law. The opinion does not state that the Court approved or rejected the proposed settlement.
Disposition
The order requires further settlement submissions. It does not state that the proposed settlement was approved or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.