Skip to main content

FLSA Claim Cannot Be Settled Without Court Review First


Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. - Second Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Dorian Cheeks ("Cheeks") worked at Freeport Pancake House ("Freeport") for several years.  In 2012, Cheeks sued Freeport and sought to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and asserted a claim for retaliation for previously having raised those claims under both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law.  The parties reached a private settlement and filed a joint stipulation and order of dismissal.  

However, the district court judge declined to accept the stipulation and instructed the parties to file a copy of the settlement agreement on the docket and "show cause why the proposed settlement reflects a reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought by an employer's overreaching."  Instead of complying with the judge's instruction, the parties jointly sought certification of an appeal to the Second Circuit and requested a decision on whether the parties may stipulate to the dismissal of an action without the involvement of the court.

Holding:  The Court pointed to the fact that unlike most causes of action which can be settled simply with a stipulation of dismissal, courts should apply extra scrutiny to FLSA settlements to prevent workers from waiving the protections of the Act.  As the Court held, some sort of judicial scrutiny of FLSA settlements is needed to ensure that private settlements further the policy goals of the FLSA.  If plaintiffs agree to compromise settlement amounts that do not achieve the goal of preventing employers from violating the FLSA, the purpose of the FLSA would be frustrated.  Consequently, even if the proposed settlement between Cheeks and Freeport was "reasonable", the Court held that some level of scrutiny was needed before the FLSA claim could be dismissed.

Judgment:  The Second Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court and held that parties cannot settle their FLSA claims, absent approval from either a court or the Department of Labor.

The Takeaway:  I think this ruling makes sense when you think about it, as the Court of Appeals in essence took steps to protect litigants from themselves.  I think it is especially important when a plaintiff brings an FLSA suit without the help of an attorney and might be "tricked" into signing away more rights than they realize with an FLSA settlement.  By requiring that a court or the Department of Labor approve the settlement, the Court of Appeals set up a safeguard to make sure that no one gets "taken for a ride" and mistakenly settles more than they realize. 

However, note that the Court of Appeals did not provide any guidance on "what the district court must consider in deciding whether to approve the putative settlement."  This is probably for the best though, as the Court did not want to establish any stringent test and instead chose to leave the decision up to the discretion of the judge who decides whether to approve an FLSA settlement.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Pooler

Date:  August 7, 2015

Opinion:  www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e1bc7cde-286a-48c5-a556-375ab0fdaeb6/1/doc/14-299_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e1bc7cde-286a-48c5-a556-375ab0fdaeb6/1/hilite/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more