Washington v. Interstate Fire & Safety Equipment Company, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-06115
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Washington v. Interstate Fire, Judge Briccetti declined to approve the FLSA settlement because its release was overbroad and fee support was missing.
Amin Washington, Interstate Fire & Safety Equipment Company, Inc., Williams Barnes, and their counsel, because the proposed settlement was not approved and additional settlement and fee materials were required.
What happened
In Washington v. Interstate Fire & Safety Equipment Company, Inc., Amin Washington and defendants Interstate Fire & Safety Equipment Company, Inc., and Williams Barnes jointly submitted a settlement agreement in this wage-and-hour case and asked the court to approve it.
The court found that the agreement’s mutual release covered nearly every possible claim, including claims unrelated to wages, and was too broad without a fuller explanation. The agreement also provided for attorneys’ fees, but plaintiff’s counsel did not submit the retainer agreement or billing records needed to evaluate whether those fees were fair and reasonable.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti declined to approve the settlement at that time. He ordered the parties to submit either a revised release or a fuller explanation of its benefits, along with the retainer agreement and billing records, by November 13, 2023.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Interstate Fire & Safety Equipment Company, Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-06115
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
Amin Washington and defendants Interstate Fire & Safety Equipment Company, Inc., and Williams Barnes jointly filed an executed settlement agreement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They also asked the court to approve the settlement, as required for FLSA settlements under the court’s cited precedent.
The court recognized that a neutral mediator helped the parties reach the settlement and that genuine disputes existed about both liability and damages.
Reasons for the Court’s Action
The court declined to approve the proposed settlement at that time for two reasons.
First, Section V contained a mutual general release covering all claims of any kind under any possible legal theory or statute, from the beginning of the world through the agreement’s effective date. The court found this release too broad to be considered fair and reasonable without a fuller explanation of what Washington would receive in exchange for giving up such broad claims. The court noted that courts in the district routinely reject FLSA releases covering unrelated claims, unknown claims, and claims beyond wage-and-hour issues.
Second, the settlement provided for attorneys’ fees. The approval motion stated that the fees were less than the amount Washington agreed to pay under his retainer agreement and less than the amount calculated using the time spent by counsel. However, plaintiff’s counsel did not submit the retainer agreement or contemporaneous billing records showing the hours worked and the nature of that work. Without those materials, the court could not evaluate whether the proposed fee award and overall settlement were fair and reasonable.
Order
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the parties, by November 13, 2023, to file either a revised settlement agreement modifying the mutual general release in Section V or a further explanation of the benefits Washington would receive for accepting that broad release. The parties must also submit Washington’s retainer agreement and contemporaneous billing records supporting the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed attorneys’ fee award. The opinion does not state that the court approved or finally rejected the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.