Joseph v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Background

Wayne Joseph, Scott Denley, Anthony Barbato, Bryan Walsh, Latoria Bosley, Darnell Eason, Cerrone Danzy, Worrell Francis, Lorenzo Thousand, and Jason Vasquez sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. They claimed, among other things, unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing certain minimum-wage and overtime protections.

After the parties reached a settlement, they sought court approval. The court denied the first request on May 9, 2023, without prejudice to renewal. It denied the renewed request on July 5, 2023, also without prejudice to renewal, identifying deficiencies in plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. The parties then submitted another settlement-approval request, including a revised settlement and a fees letter.

Settlement-Approval Standard

Because the FLSA contains mandatory wage protections, the court explained that an employer generally cannot settle covered wage claims without approval from the Department of Labor or a district court. For court approval, the settlement must be fair and reasonable. The court considers the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement avoids, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. Courts also should not approve highly restrictive confidentiality provisions or overbroad releases.

The court stated that it had previously found the revised settlement satisfied the fairness factors and that its release clause was fair and reasonable. The renewed proceeding therefore focused on plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee request.

Attorney’s Fees

Counsel requested $9,850 in fees and stated that the amount was approximately one-tenth of the plaintiffs’ total recovery and less than the one-third fee often approved in FLSA settlements in the district. The revised settlement provided for a total settlement amount of $115,008.96, including $105,158.96 for the plaintiffs and $9,850 for counsel. Although the settlement referred to fees and costs, counsel stated that they were not seeking a separate award of costs, and the court treated the $9,850 as the fee award.

Counsel submitted declarations and contemporaneous billing records. The records showed approximately 149.40 hours for Jane Lauer Barker, 98.60 hours for Stephen McQuade, 30 hours for Andrew Midgen, and 261.60 hours for Joseph Bonomo. Barker and McQuade billed at $275 per hour; Midgen and Bonomo billed at $225 per hour. The court found these rates reasonable.

The court calculated a lodestar—the reasonable hourly rates multiplied by the reasonable hours worked—of $133,810. Compared with the requested $9,850, the fee represented a multiplier of approximately 0.07. The court accepted that multiplier and found the fee reasonable under the circumstances, particularly because it was less than one-third of the total settlement award.

Ruling

The court approved the revised settlement as fair and reasonable and granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for attorney’s fees. The court therefore granted the parties’ motion for settlement approval, including the revised letter and fees letter. It directed the Clerk to terminate any pending motions, vacate all conferences, and close the case.