Second Circuit Requires Court Approval of all FLSA Settlements
Glenn S. Grindlinger writes that generally, when parties settle a federal court action, they simply file a stipulation that dismisses the case with prejudice, ensuring they do not have to provide the court with a copy of their settlement agreement and its terms can remain private and confidential. A recent decision has removed that option when a case includes claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
August 18, 2015 at 04:08 PM
10 minute read
Settlement of wage and hour actions just got harder in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. On Aug. 7, 2015, in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, issued a decision that prevents parties from stipulating to the dismissal of a case in which there are claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Generally, when parties settle a federal court action, they simply file a stipulation pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that dismisses the case with prejudice. By filing such a stipulation, the parties do not have to provide the court with a copy of their settlement agreement and the terms of any such agreement can remain private and confidential. In Cheeks, the Second Circuit held that parties cannot use Rule 41(a)(1)(A) to dismiss FLSA cases with prejudice and instead the parties must submit their settlement agreement to the District Court for review so that the District Court can determine whether the settlement is fair and equitable.
Case Background
In Cheeks, the plaintiff, Dorian Cheeks, had worked for the defendant, Freeport Pancake House, Inc., as a restaurant server and manager. In August 2012, she filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that Freeport Pancake House did not properly pay her overtime in violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff sought to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs. The complaint was filed as a single-plaintiff action; it was not filed as a class or collective action.
During discovery, the parties privately settled the matter. As part of their settlement, they submitted to the District Court a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A). The District Court rejected the stipulation holding that the parties could not agree to a private settlement of an FLSA claim absent court or U.S. Department of Labor approval. As such, the District Court directed the parties to file a copy of the settlement agreement on the public docket and explain to the court why the settlement was fair and reasonable.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLack of Agreement on 'Implicit' Settlement Term Insufficient to Preclude Enforcement
7 minute read'Nothing Routine' About Eric Adams Bribery, Prosecutors Tell Judge in Defending Charge
NY Lateral Partner Moves Spike, Especially in PE and Funds Practices
NYC Judge Holds Immigration Restriction Group in Contempt for Inadequate Response to AG Subpoena
Trending Stories
- 1A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 2A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
- 3The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 4Data-Driven Legal Strategies
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250