Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 27, 2023

Bertrand v. Department of Education, Archdiocese of New York

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-10445
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Bertrand v. Department of Education, Judge Liman stayed the Fair Labor Standards Act case and ordered settlement papers and a hearing to review the proposed settlement.

Who this affects

Troy D. Bertrand and the defendants are affected because they must submit information about the proposed settlement, address any attorney’s-fee request, attend the settlement-approval hearing, and comply with the stay. The order also concerns plaintiff’s counsel if the settlement includes an attorney’s-fee award.

What happened

Bertrand v. Department of Education, Archdiocese of New York, involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle, but the order does not describe the settlement’s terms.

The court required the parties to submit a joint letter by October 27, 2023, explaining why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The letter also had to address confidentiality, non-disparagement provisions, releases, and any request for attorney’s fees, supported by appropriate records.

The court scheduled a telephone settlement-approval hearing for November 3, 2023, and requested that the plaintiff attend, with an interpreter if necessary. Judge Lewis J. Liman directed the Clerk of Court to stay the case; the order did not approve or reject the settlement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bertrand v. Department of Education, Archdiocese of New York · No. 1:22-cv-10445
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Sept. 27, 2023

Background

Troy D. Bertrand brought this case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The opinion states that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. It does not provide the settlement amount or other substantive terms.

Court’s required settlement review

Under Second Circuit law, the court must scrutinize an FLSA settlement, including any proposed award of attorney’s fees, to determine whether it is fair. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by October 27, 2023, explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter had to address confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, and releases in the proposed agreement.

If the settlement included an attorney’s-fee award, the parties also had to address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the fee’s proportion of the total settlement amount was insufficient. It required adequate documentation of fees and costs, normally including 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.

Disposition

The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on November 3, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. The plaintiff was requested to attend and, if necessary, use an interpreter. The Clerk of Court was directed to stay the case. The order did not decide the merits of Bertrand’s claims and did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.