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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Senator Bernie Sanders To Introduce Bill Requiring Large Corporations To Pay For Federal Assistance Programs

Next week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is set to introduce legislation which would require large employers such as Walmart, Amazon, and McDonald's to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and other federal assistance programs that their employees receive.  Senator Sanders has stated that the goal is to force these large employers to pay their employees a living wage and cut back on the nearly $150 billion in taxpayer dollars that go toward funding these federal programs every year. As for the specifics, a 100% tax on government benefits received would be imposed on government benefits received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees.  For instance, if a Walmart employee received $500 in food stamps, Walmart would be taxed $500. To call this proposed legislation groundbreaking would be an understatement.  I would expect that Senator Sanders, an Independent that caucuses with Democrats, is going to face an uphill battle gett...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more