Brown v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:22-cv-10144
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Judge Liman required settlement materials and scheduled a fairness hearing without deciding the underlying wage claims.
The plaintiff, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, their counsel, and the proposed settlement were affected by the court’s required fairness review, documentation requirements, scheduled hearing, and cancellation of pending deadlines.
What happened
Brown v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which plaintiff’s counsel told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or approve it.
The court ordered the parties to submit settlement papers and a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter must address confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, releases, and any attorney’s fees, supported by appropriate documentation.
Judge Liman scheduled a telephone fairness hearing for October 13, 2023, and required the plaintiff to attend. The court dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center · No. 1:22-cv-10144
- Stewart Aaron
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
Plaintiff’s counsel informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain wage and hour issues. The opinion does not provide the parties’ settlement amount or other settlement terms.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that, under Second Circuit law, a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—must be reviewed to determine whether it is fair. The parties were ordered to submit the settlement papers and a joint letter by October 6, 2023. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable, addressing the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.
The court specifically required the letter to address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases. If the settlement included an attorney’s fee award, the parties also had to provide supporting documentation consistent with the principles described in Fisher v. SD Protection Inc. The court stated that merely identifying the requested fee’s proportion of the total settlement was insufficient. Adequate support would normally include contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could lead it to reject the proposed fee award.
Order and Effect
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a fairness hearing on October 13, 2023, at 3:30 p.m., and directed the plaintiff to appear. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot. The court also canceled all other conferences and deadlines, including trial and pretrial deadlines. The opinion did not approve or reject the settlement and did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.