Bitsadze v. Simonsen
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:22-cv-03142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bitsadze v. Simonsen, Judge Rearden ordered the parties to submit their FLSA settlement for fairness review.
The plaintiff and defendants who reached the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, as well as the plaintiff’s counsel regarding any proposed attorney’s fee award.
What happened
In Bitsadze v. Simonsen, the parties told Judge Jennifer H. Rearden that they had reached a settlement of the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act wage-and-overtime case.
The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by September 7, 2023. The letter must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and address any incentive payment to the plaintiff and attorney’s fees. The court also identified restrictions involving confidentiality, broad releases, and non-disparagement provisions.
Judge Rearden did not approve or reject the settlement in this order. She ordered the requested submission and reminded the parties that they could consent to have the assigned magistrate judge decide whether to approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Bitsadze v. Simonsen · No. 1:22-cv-03142
- Stewart Aaron
- Aug. 18, 2023
Background The parties informed the court on August 16, 2023, that they had reached a settlement in this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing matters including overtime pay. The opinion explains that when FLSA claims are settled and dismissed under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement and any proposed attorney’s fee award must be reviewed for fairness.
Order The court ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint letter by September 7, 2023. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and, if the parties contemplate dismissal under Rule 41, why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable under the factors identified in the court’s cited precedent. The letter must also address any incentive payment to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to the plaintiff’s counsel, including supporting documentation when appropriate.
The court stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision unless the parties showed case-specific reasons sufficient to overcome the common-law right of public access to judicial documents. It likewise stated that it would not approve an overly broad release or waiver of unaccrued or unrelated claims without case-specific justification, or a non-disparagement clause without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case unless such a clause was specifically justified. If the agreement contained such provisions, the parties were directed to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with those provisions removed. The opinion notes that the court may approve or reject the agreement but may not modify it itself. The parties were also reminded that they could consent to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ordered these submissions but did not approve or reject the settlement in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.