'Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House': Five Years Later
Today marks the five-year anniversary of Second Circuit's decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House. In the years since Cheeks was decided, the contours of what is permissible and impermissible in the settlement of FLSA claims have been developed by the district courts as they undertake "Cheeks" review of FLSA settlement agreements.
August 06, 2020 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
Today marks the five-year anniversary of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), which held that the settlement of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims by stipulated dismissal with prejudice requires court approval. In the five years since Cheeks was decided, the contours of what is permissible and impermissible in the settlement of FLSA claims have been developed by the district courts as they undertake "Cheeks" review of FLSA settlement agreements.
The 'Cheeks' Decision
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 provides that—subject to any applicable statue—a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by the parties. The question in Cheeks was whether the FLSA was an "applicable statute" for purposes of the Rule, thus limiting a plaintiff's ability to dismiss FLSA claims without a court order.
Although the "FLSA is silent as to Rule 41," Cheeks held that the "unique policy considerations underlying the FLSA" and its " remedial purpose" to prevent employer abuses and remedy disparate bargaining power supported a finding that the FLSA is an "applicable statute," requiring court review of FLSA settlements prior to dismissal. Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 201, 207.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllFusion Voting and Its Impact on the Upcoming Election
Trending Stories
- 16th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 2On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 3After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
- 4Latham Lures Restructuring Partners From Weil, Paul Weiss
- 5Haynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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