Settling most cases is a difficult process, particularly when the parties dispute what exactly happened or when the underlying claim turns out to be smaller than anticipated. In Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) cases, the process can be even more difficult depending on the court’s interpretation of the FLSA’s enforcement provision, section 16, which permits the Department of Labor to supervise settlements.
Courts have reached differing interpretations regarding this statutory language and whether it requires DOL or judicial approval of all FLSA settlements. The parties to an FLSA case may wish to avoid having to submit a settlement agreement to the court to obtain approval before a case can be settled. Such reasons include a desire to keep the settlement terms confidential, the cost of obtaining judicial approval, and the time delay inherent in having to obtain judicial or DOL approval. The question that has long plagued litigants and attorneys alike is whether the parties can find a means of settling their matters without having to seek review, as they do with virtually every other kind of employment case.
In 2012, the Fifth Circuit when faced with the question in Martin v. Spring Break ’83 Productions, L.L.C. created a distinction between disputed and undisputed claims. In that case, the court held that the settlement of disputed claims did not require judicial or DOL review or approval. The court contrasted disputed claims with those where there was no dispute that the employer owed wages to employees (e.g. overtime or unpaid minimum wages) but in which the defendant attempted to use the litigation to coerce a lesser settlement. Other federal circuits have not universally adopted this holding, leaving litigants outside the Fifth Circuit still searching for a definitive answer.
Earlier this month, the Second Circuit in Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., laid the groundwork for an alternative route for settling FLSA claims without DOL or judicial approval by utilizing Rule 68. In Yu, a sushi chef filed a collective action against his employer seeking certification of a class of employees of the restaurant where he worked. The restaurant made an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of $20,000 plus attorney’s fees. The chef accepted the offer, but the trial judge sua sponte ordered the parties to submit the settlement agreement for review or offer justification as to why such review was unnecessary. Ultimately, the district court determined review was necessary, but given the uncertainty of the issue, certified the matter for interlocutory appeal.
A majority of the Second Circuit panel found that settlement via Rule 68 trumped any requirement of judicial review. Thus a case settled through a Rule 68 offer of judgment did not require any approval of the settlement. In explaining the rationale for the holding, the majority carefully reviewed the meaning and purpose of both Rule 68 and the FLSA. From this, they concluded that, on balance, parties represented by counsel should be able to make their own decisions about a settlement through Rule 68. The lone dissenting judge on the panel also reviewed the same meaning and purpose but came to the opposite conclusion that judicial approval was needed, Rule 68 or not. The dissent asked the Supreme Court to review the issue and definitively settle the question.
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Our Naperville, Illinois consumer rights law firm handles individual and class action gift card, data breach, privacy rights, deceptive advertising, predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law, and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totaling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Chicago consumer lawyers at Lubin Austermuehle are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations to obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case, filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers’ rights are protected from unscrupulous or dishonest practices.
Our Wheaton and Schaumburg consumer attorneys provide assistance in data breach, privacy violation, fair debt collection, consumer fraud, and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases our Chicago consumer lawyers have handled. You can contact one of our Skokie and Waukegan consumer protection attorneys who can assist in consumer fraud, consumer rip-off, lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime, and other consumer class action cases by calling our phone number at 630-333-0333, filling out the contact form at the side of this blog, or clicking here.