Snead v. Interim Healthcare of Rochester, Inc.

286 F.Supp.3d 546

Linda SNEAD, Plaintiff,

v.INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF ROCHESTER, INC., Defendant.

6:16–CV–06550 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed February 26, 2018

Peter O'Brian Dellinger, Elizabeth Nicolas, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff.

Robert J. Fluskey, Jr., Sarah Nagel Miller, Hodgson Russ, LLP, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant.

DECISION & ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

On August 8, 2016, Plaintiff Linda Snead ("Plaintiff") commenced this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 – 219 ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law, N.Y. Labor Law §§ 190, et seq. , N.Y. Labor Law §§ 650, et seq. ("NYLL"), and the corresponding state regulations. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff alleges causes of action for unpaid wages and overtime payments, as well as for the failure to comply with minimum wage requirements and pay notice standards. (Id. at 8–11). On February 3, 2017, Defendant answered the complaint, denying the material allegations stated therein and raising various affirmative defenses. (Dkt. 13). However, on August 21, 2017, a Mediation Certification was filed indicating that the case had settled. (Dkt. 27).

Presently before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Settlement Approval. (Dkt. 32). The parties have attached the proposed settlement instrument as an exhibit to their motion (the "Agreement"). (Dkt. 32–2). Pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), either the district court or the United States Department of Labor must approve the settlement of an employee's claims against their employer, where the settlement would dispose of those claims with prejudice. Id. at 206. On January 29, 2018, the Court held a motion hearing to address the parties' joint application. The Court reserved decision and requested that Plaintiff's counsel provide a supplemental submission detailing the nature of the work performed, counsel's experience level, and contemporaneous time records, if they were available. On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel submitted an affidavit describing the work performed in this case (Dkt. 35), and attached contemporaneous time records noting the date and nature of the work performed as well as the person who undertook each recorded task (Dkt. 35–1). The parties ask this Court to find the Agreement to be fair and reasonable, and that the proposed attorney's fees incorporated therein are reasonable. (Dkt. 32–1). For the following reasons, the parties' motion is granted.

BACKGROUND ¹

Plaintiff worked for Defendant, as a non-exempt home health aide, from June 2007 through December 2013. (Dkt. 32–1 at 2). Plaintiff allegedly worked anywhere between 40 and 80 hours a week, but was paid below minimum wage and at improper pay rates, and was not paid for overtime hours. (Id. ). After Defendant answered the complaint, this action proceeded through the initial stages of discovery. Upon the review of Plaintiff's own records and of Defendant's records obtained through discovery, Plaintiff's counsel concluded that Defendant owed Plaintiff $602.28 in unpaid wages ranging back to August 8, 2013, under the FLSA, and $6,254.62 for unpaid wages ranging back to August 8, 2010, under the NYLL. (Id. ). Defendant denies liability and disputes Plaintiff's computation of damages. (Id. ).

Beginning in 2017, the parties' respective counsel engaged in settlement negotiations. (Id. at 3). On August 21, 2017, a mediation certification was filed indicating that the parties had reached a settlement prior to the scheduling of the first mediation session. (Dkt. 27). The Agreement provides Plaintiff with a total settlement amount of $20,000.00. (Dkt. 32–1 at 3). Plaintiff favors this settlement in lieu of continuing with a course of litigation and its attendant costs, and of risking "an uncollectable judgment." (Id. ; see id. at 4 ("[Plaintiff] is a low-income worker who is interested in moving on from time-consuming[ ] litigation with [Defendant]."). Defendant also favors this settlement, at least in part, due to the costs of continued litigation. (Id. at 4).

The parties have agreed that the $20,000.00 will be paid in three checks. The first check will be for "wages payable to [Plaintiff]," in the amount of $6,250.00. (Id. at 3). The second check will be for "liquidated damages payable to [Plaintiff]," in the amount of $6,250.00. (Id. ). The third check will be for "attorneys' fees payable to the Empire Justice Center," in the amount of $7,500.00. (Id. ).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Principles

"Parties cannot privately settle FLSA claims with prejudice absent the approval of the district court or the Department of Labor." Lazaro–Garcia v. Sengupta Food Servs., No. 15-CV-4259 (RA), 2015 WL 9162701, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2015) (citing Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015) ("Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissals settling FLSA claims with prejudice require the approval of the district court or the [Department of Labor] to take effect.") ). "To approve a settlement, this Court must be satisfied that the agreement is ‘fair and reasonable.’ " Velasquez v. SAFI–G, Inc., 137 F.Supp.3d 582, 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

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 settlement agreement is the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel"; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion.

Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F.Supp.2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Other factors may weigh against settlement approval, such as:

(1) "the presence of other employees situated similarly to the claimant"; (2) "a likelihood that the claimant's circumstance will recur"; (3) "a history of FLSA noncompliance by the same employer or others in the same industry or geographic region"; and (4) the desirability of "a mature record" and "a pointed determination of the governing factual or legal issue to further the development of the law either in general or in an industry or in a workplace."

Felix v. Breakroom Burgers & Tacos, No. 15 CIV. 3531 (PAE), 2016 WL 3791149, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2016) (citations omitted).

II. The Factors Weighing in Favor of Approval

The Court finds that the amount of recovery under the Agreement is fair when compared to Plaintiff's expected range of recovery. "Under the FLSA, any employer that violates the requirement to pay minimum or overtime wages ‘shall be liable to the ... employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation ... and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages." Beckert v. Rubinov, No. 15 Civ. 1951 (PAE), 2015 WL 6503832, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2015) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) ). From Plaintiff's perspective, she was entitled to $602.28 in unpaid wages ranging back to August 8, 2013, under the FLSA, and $6,254.62 for unpaid wages ranging back to August 8, 2010, under the NYLL.

The NYLL also supplies a liquidated damages provision that, in its present form, is substantially the same as the one provided for under the FLSA. See N.Y. Labor Law § 663(1) ; Chowdhury v. Hamza Express Food Corp., 666 Fed.Appx. 59, 61 (2d Cir. 2016) ("Today the NYLL and FLSA liquidated damages provisions are identical in all material respects, serve the same functions, and redress the same injuries."). However, the NYLL liquidated damages provisions did not always mirror its federal counterpart. See Choudry v. Durrani, No. 14-CV-4562 (SIL), 2016 WL 6651319, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2016) ("Prior to the 2011 Amendment to the NYLL increasing liquidated damages from 25% to 100% of total unpaid wages, some courts ‘awarded cumulative liquidated damages under both the FLSA and NYLL because the statutes' liquidated damages provisions serve[d] different purposes.’ " (quoting Hengjin Sun v. China 1221, Inc., No. 12-CV-7135 (RJS), 2016 WL 1587242, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2016) ) ).

Nonetheless, those amendments have since aligned the two statutes, undermining the rationale for cumulative recovery. See Chowdhury, 666 Fed.Appx. at 61 ("In the absence of any indication otherwise, we interpret the New York statute's provision for liquidated damages as satisfied by a similar award of liquidated damages under the federal statute."); Santana v. Latino Express Rests., Inc., 198 F.Supp.3d 285, 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("[The p]laintiff is not entitled to double recovery for liquidated damages under both the FLSA and NYLL."). Even still, the previous form of the NYLL is still applicable to some claims asserted under its provisions based upon their time of occurrence. See Cardoza v. Mango King Farmers Mkt. Corp., No. 14-CV-3314 (SJ) (RER), 2015 WL 5561033, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2015) ("For all NYLL claims that occurred on or before April 8, 2011, NYLL liquidated damages were equal to twenty-five percent of the total amount of wages to be found due. For all NYLL claims that occurred on or after April 9, 2011, the employer is liable for liquidated damages equal to one hundred percent of the total amount of wages found to be due." (quotation marks and citations omitted) ), report and recommendation adopted, No. 14-CV-3314 (SJ) (RER), 2015 WL 5561180 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2015).

Plaintiff claims that her unpaid NYLL wages extend back to August 8, 2010, and thus, even if Plaintiff was entitled to cumulative recovery of the portion of her NYLL liquidated damages arising before April 9, 2011, it would not matter in this case because all of her alleged unpaid wage claims under the FLSA extend back only to August 8, 2013. (Dkt. 32–1 at 2). As such, any potential...