Opinion
21-cv-04509 (PMH)
12-06-2021
GAYLE MORALES, Plaintiff, v. FROSS, ZELNICK, LEHRMAN &ZISSU, P.C., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
PHILIP M. HALPERN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The parties in this wage-and-hour case have submitted a joint letter and proposed settlement agreement, which provides for a total settlement payment of $5,000. (Doc. 25). The Court now considers whether the settlement is fair and reasonable under the standard set forth in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The unique policy considerations underlying the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) require that a court or the Department of Labor approve any settlement of FLSA claims. Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 206. The Court must assure itself that the proposed settlement terms are “fair and reasonable” before approving such a settlement. Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F.Supp.2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “In determining whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, a court should consider the totality of circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors: (1) the plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the extent to which the settlement will enable the parties to avoid anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing their respective claims and defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) whether the 1 settlement agreement is the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion.” Id. (cleaned up).
ANALYSIS
Having carefully reviewed the joint letter and proposed settlement agreement, the Court finds that the proposed settlement agreement “‘is a fair and reasonable resolution of the dispute.'” Sloben v. SDI Int'l Corp., No. 20-CV-04717, 2021 WL 4124952, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2021) (quoting Kopera v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 09-CV-08337, 2011 WL 13272403, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2011)). Judged against the “costs and delays” of further litigation, the total settlement amount of $5,000 is reasonable and reflects an arm's-length agreement. (Doc. 25 at 3). Moreover, because Plaintiff's attorneys “receive no fees out of the settlement, the Court need not assess whether any fee award is fair and reasonable.” Bland v. Doyle, No. 20-CV-03226, 2021 WL 3501091, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2021).
With respect to the proposed settlement agreement's terms, there are no confidentiality, non-disclosure, or non-disparagement provisions. See Amhaz v. Booking.com (USA) Inc., No. 17-CV-02120, 2019 WL 9122944, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2019) (recommending approval of proposed settlement agreement that contained no confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions), adopted by No. 17-CV-02120, 2020 WL 3498264 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2020). “The settlement agreement's release provision is also appropriately limited to wage-related claims . . . .” Id.
Accordingly, the proposed settlement agreement is approved. The parties are directed to file a fully executed stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice by December 8, 2021. 2
SO-ORDERED. 3