Gayle v. Advanced Clean-Up Technologies Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-04987
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gayle v. Advanced Clean-Up Technologies, Judge Furman required filings supporting review of the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.
Ryan Gayle, Advanced Clean-Up Technologies, Inc., the other defendants, and their counsel were required to submit the settlement materials and joint letter by February 2, 2024. The scheduled pretrial conference and other pending deadlines were adjourned.
What happened
In Gayle v. Advanced Clean-Up Technologies, the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle in Ryan Gayle’s wage-and-overtime case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court ordered the parties to submit their settlement agreement and a joint letter by February 2, 2024. The letter must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and address any payment to the plaintiff and attorney’s fees. The court also warned that it would not approve certain confidentiality, broad-release, or non-disparagement provisions without case-specific justification.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not approve the settlement in this order. He adjourned the scheduled pretrial conference and other deadlines, and directed the Clerk to terminate one docket entry.
The detailed version
- Gayle v. Advanced Clean-Up Technologies Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04987
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 22, 2024
Background
The court was advised by letter filed January 19, 2024, that the parties had reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. The FLSA requires an employer that violates overtime-pay requirements to pay unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount as liquidated damages.
The court explained that when parties settle and seek dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement—including any proposed attorney’s-fee award—must be reviewed for fairness. The order cited the factors described in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. The court also noted that judicial approval is not required when FLSA claims are settled through a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit, by February 2, 2024, the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why any dismissal under Rule 41 should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address any incentive payment to Ryan Gayle and any attorney’s-fee award to his counsel, with supporting documentation when appropriate.
The parties were told that they could consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned Magistrate Judge, who would then decide whether to approve the settlement. If all parties consented, they were directed to file the completed consent form by February 2, 2024.
The court further stated that it would not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision without case-specific reasons overcoming the public-access right; a release or waiver covering unaccrued claims or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters without case-specific justification; or a clause barring negative statements about a defendant without an exception for truthful statements about the plaintiff’s experience litigating the case, absent case-specific justification. If such provisions appeared, the parties had to say whether they wanted the court to consider approving the agreement with those provisions removed. The court noted that it could approve or reject the agreement but could not modify it itself.
Disposition and Effect
The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It required further submissions, adjourned the March 14, 2024 pretrial conference and all pending deadlines, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 47. The court entered the order through Judge Jesse M. Furman.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.