Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 3, 2024

Hinds v. City of New York, New York

Judge
Ona Wang
Docket
1:23-cv-00889
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hinds v. City of New York, Judge Wang scheduled a settlement hearing and ordered filings about one objection and 23 dismissed plaintiffs.

Who this affects

The order affects the 892 current and former Human Resources Administration employees who brought the Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the City of New York, the plaintiff who objected to the settlement, and the 23 plaintiffs whose dismissals require explanation.

What happened

Hinds v. City of New York concerns 892 current and former City of New York employees who alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The employees worked in the Human Resources Administration as Eligibility Specialists or Clerical Associates.

The parties reached a settlement in principle during mediation and filed a signed settlement agreement. Plaintiffs were told the settlement terms and given a chance to review them, but one plaintiff objected. The parties also filed a joint dismissal of 23 plaintiffs without explaining why those plaintiffs were dismissed.

Judge Ona T. Wang ordered that the objection be filed with appropriate redactions and that the parties explain the 23 dismissals. She scheduled an in-person hearing for June 5, 2024, to review the settlement; this order did not approve or reject the settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hinds v. City of New York, New York · No. 1:23-cv-00889
Judge
Ona Wang
Date
May 3, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs are 892 current and former employees of the City of New York's Human Resources Administration. The opinion identifies their positions as Eligibility Specialists and Clerical Associates. They brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters including pay and working hours.

The case was filed on February 3, 2023. Judge Abrams referred the case to Judge Ona T. Wang for general pretrial management, and the parties later consented to Judge Wang's jurisdiction. The parties participated in three mediation sessions and reached a settlement in principle during the March 15, 2024 session.

Settlement Filing and Unresolved Issues

On April 26, 2024, the parties filed a signed written settlement agreement for court review. The plaintiffs had been informed of the settlement terms and given an opportunity to review the agreement. According to plaintiffs' counsel, the plaintiffs reacted positively, and there were no unresolved disputes about how the settlement would be allocated. The opinion identifies one unresolved objection by plaintiff Gertrude Jean Pierre. Counsel had sent communications concerning that objection to chambers for private review.

The parties also filed a joint stipulation dismissing 23 plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Wang stated that it was unclear why those plaintiffs had been voluntarily dismissed and directed the parties to explain the dismissals.

Court's Order

Judge Wang ordered plaintiffs' counsel to file the objection on the public docket, with any appropriate redactions required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, by May 10, 2024. She also ordered the parties to file a joint letter by that date explaining why the 23 plaintiffs had been dismissed.

The court scheduled an in-person hearing to review the settlement for June 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The opinion does not state that the court approved or rejected the settlement. The order addresses settlement review and related filings rather than deciding the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims, so this is a procedural order.

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.