Davis v. T&T Express Shipping, LLC
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:22-cv-01936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Davis v. T&T Express Shipping, Judge Aaron denied without prejudice approval of a proposed settlement, requiring revisions to its release and non-disparagement terms.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the proposed settlement were affected. Their settlement was not approved as submitted, and they were required to revise the agreement and related submission by February 16, 2024.
What happened
In Davis v. T&T Express Shipping, LLC, the parties jointly asked the court to approve their proposed settlement agreement and release. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail, but it discusses the agreement as an arrangement resolving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court found that the agreement’s general release covered claims beyond those involved in the case and that the parties had not shown why that broad language was fair. The court also found that the non-disparagement provision did not allow the plaintiffs to make truthful statements about their experiences outside responses required by courts, government entities, subpoenas, or law.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied the settlement-approval application without prejudice. He ordered the parties to file a revised agreement and revised submission by February 16, 2024, either narrowing the release or explaining why it was fair, and adding an exception for truthful statements to the non-disparagement provision.
The detailed version
- Davis v. T&T Express Shipping, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01936
- Stewart Aaron
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
The court reviewed a joint letter from the parties seeking approval of their proposed Settlement Agreement and Release. The opinion refers to the proposed agreement as an FLSA settlement, but it does not provide details about the underlying claims or the settlement amount.
General Release
Paragraph 3 contained a mutual general release. The plaintiffs would release all claims they had or might have against the defendants and specified related persons and entities, including claims known or unknown and claims of every kind through the agreement’s date. The provision preserved the plaintiffs’ ability to file a charge with or participate in a proceeding before an agency enforcing discrimination laws, but it barred them from receiving money arising from such a proceeding.
The parties represented that the release was narrowly tailored. The court found that the agreement’s language did not match that representation because it released claims beyond the issues in the action. The court ordered the parties either to revise the release or provide a written explanation showing why the provision was not unfair.
Non-Disparagement Clause
Paragraph 6 required both sides to refrain from making or publishing disparaging remarks or statements that could adversely affect the other side’s personal or business reputation or interests. It allowed truthful responses to inquiries from a court or government entity, to a subpoena, or when otherwise required by law.
The court found that this exception did not allow the plaintiffs to make truthful statements outside those specific circumstances, including statements about their experiences litigating the case. Relying on decisions concerning FLSA settlements, the court stated that the provision needed to leave room for free and open discussion. It therefore would not approve the clause as written.
Disposition
Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied without prejudice the parties’ application for approval of the settlement agreement. The parties were ordered to file a revised settlement agreement and revised submission by February 16, 2024. The revised materials had to address both the general release and the non-disparagement clause as specified in the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.