United States: ‘Cheeks': Restricting Private Settlements Under Fair Labor Standards Act

Last Updated: December 19 2016
Article by Jonathan A. Trafimow and Julia Gavrilov

Many litigants are understandably reluctant to publicly disclose the terms of their settlement agreements. An August 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, 796 F.3d 199, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13815 (2d Cir. 2015), nonetheless prevents parties from voluntarily entering into private settlements of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in New York's federal district courts.1 This article discusses certain district court decisions construing Cheeks and strategies employers have utilized in response to it.

Until Cheeks, if a wage-and-hour case was settled at a conference before one of the district courts within the Second Circuit, the parties could finalize a written settlement agreement and simply submit a stipulation of dismissal for the court's endorsement, or agree to place the material terms of their settlement on the record, which would often include, inter alia, a requirement that the parties keep their settlement confidential, and that the employee provide the employer with a broad, general release. Only in limited circumstances would parties typically choose to submit a settlement agreement for judicial approval in an individual wage-and-hour case, whereas collective or class action settlement of FLSA claims have always required court approval. Souza v. 65 St. Marks Bistro, No. 15-cv-327, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151144, at **4-5 (SDNY, Nov. 16, 2015; internal citations omitted).

In Cheeks, the Second Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of New York holding that parties cannot enter into settlements of individual FLSA claims without either the approval of the district court or the Department of Labor. Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 200, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13815, at *1.

The Cheeks case involved a restaurant server and manager who sued his employer to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorney fees under both the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. See Id. at 200. After engaging in a period of discovery, the parties agreed to privately settle plaintiff's claims, and filed a joint stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court declined to accept the stipulation as submitted, concluding that the parties could not agree to a settlement of Cheeks' FLSA claims without either the approval of the district court or the supervision of the Department of Labor, and required the parties to file a copy of the proposed settlement on the public docket. See Id.

The pivotal question on appeal was whether an FLSA action serves as an exception to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)'s general rule that parties may stipulate to the dismissal of an action without the involvement of the court. The Second Circuit held that it does.

Discussing the FLSA's legislative history and unique policy considerations, the Second Circuit in Cheeks explained that the FLSA "protect[s] certain groups of the population from substandard wages and excessive hours which endangered the national health and well-being and the free flow of goods in interstate commerce." Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 199, quoting, Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945). Recognizing the unequal bargaining power that may exist between employers and employees, the FLSA prohibits employers from engaging in certain prohibited business practices, such as overworking employees without statutorily required compensation. Indeed, courts must now police FLSA settlement agreements by overseeing an employer's unequal bargaining power, as "without judicial oversight ... employers may be more inclined to offer, and employees, even when represented by counsel, may be more inclined to accept, private settlements that ultimately are cheaper to the employer than compliance with the [FLSA]." See Id. at 205, quoting, Socias v. Vornado Realty, 297 F.R.D. 38, 41 (EDNY, 2014).

Therefore, the Second Circuit explained, recognizing the FLSA as a statutory exception to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 reinforces the FLSA's underlying purpose, which is to maintain fairness between the disparate parties by determining whether the proposed settlement terms are a fair and reasonable resolution to the parties' dispute under the FLSA.

Even prior to the Cheeks decision, courts in the Second Circuit that had reviewed FLSA settlement agreements had routinely rejected any request for confidentiality of the settlement terms, deeming them against public policy because they "prevent the spread of information about FLSA actions to other works...who [could] then use that information to vindicate their own statutory rights." Weng v. T&W Rest., 15-cv-08167, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83217, at **11-12 (SDNY, June 22, 2016), quoting Lopez v. Ploy Dee, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53339, 2016 WL 1626631, at *3 (SDNY, April 4, 2016).

Non-Disparagement Clause

Since Cheeks, courts within the Second Circuit have scrutinized proposed FLSA settlement agreements and evaluated them for any terms that are not fair and reasonable. In addition to rejecting any confidentiality provisions, courts have not approved settlement agreements dismissing FLSA claims which contained a non-disparagement clause unless it contained a carve-out for truthful statements to others regarding the facts underlying the employee's claims and/ or the employee's experience in litigating his/her case. As with confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement clauses that lack a carve-out for truthful statements contravene the remedial purpose of the FLSA and are not fair and reasonable. Martinez v. Gulluoglu, No. 15 Civ. 2727, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5366, at *2 (SDNY, Jan. 15, 2016).

General Releases

Since Cheeks, courts in this circuit have also routinely rejected FLSA settlement agreements containing full general releases requiring employees to waive essentially any claim that he/she may have against any defendant, including, but not limited to, unknown claims and claims that have no relationship whatsoever to wage/hour issues, holding that such sweeping provisions are not fair and reasonable. Martinez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5366, at **3-4. In this regard, employers are not entitled to use money spent to settle an FLSA claim to leverage a release from liability unrelated to the FLSA. The only release provision that is permissible under an FLSA settlement is one that is not only mutual, but does not extend beyond the claims and/or facts at issue in that particular action. See Id. at 5.

Fees and Public Access

Another consideration that courts in the Second Circuit remain cognizant of in evaluating the fairness of an FLSA settlement agreement is when an attorney fees provision is included. Courts will analyze any attorney fees provision provided for in an FLSA settlement using, at their discretion, either the lodestar method to determine the reasonableness of the fees requested under the circumstances or by awarding a "percentage of the fund." Weng v. T&W Rest., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83217, at *8, quoting Lopez v. Ploy Dee, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53339, 2016 WL 1626631, at *4.

Although the overwhelming trend is to award a percentage of the fund, in any event, courts will be guided by factors including: "(1) counsel's time and labor; (2) the case's magnitude and complexities; (3) the risk of continued litigation; (4) the quality of representation; (5) the fee's relation to the settlement; and (6) public policy considerations." Id.; see also Fujiwara v. Sushi Yasuda, 58 F.Supp.3d 424, 435 (SDNY, 2014).

Under the "percentage of the fund" method, except in extraordinary cases, courts will decline to award fees representing more than one-third of the settlement amount if no other factors suggest that such a fee is unreasonable.2 Florex v. Food Express Rego Park, Inc., 2016 WL 386042, at *3 (EDNY, Feb. 1, 2016). Indeed, courts within the Second Circuit believe that a fee in excess of one-third of the settlement amount disserves the FLSA's interest in fairly compensating injured employees. Zhang v. Lin Kumo Japanese Rest., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115608, at *11. Nevertheless, a "percentage of fund" contingency fee agreement can encourage early settlement of a case, which, so long as the fee falls within an acceptable range, may result in a higher award for counsel than counsel would otherwise obtain under a lodestar analysis. Weng v. T&W Rest., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83217, at **9-10.

As the district courts within the Second Circuit now require parties to obtain judicial approval of FLSA settlements, a presumption of public access applies. To overcome this presumption, "the parties must make a substantial showing of need for the terms of their settlement to contain a confidentiality provision." McCall v. Brosnan Risk Consultants, 14-CV-2520 (JS)(SIL), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51338, at *3 (EDNY, April 15, 2016), quoting, Mosquera v. Masada Auto Sales, No. 09-CV-4935, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7476, at *2 (EDNY, Jan. 25, 2011).

If the presumption is not overcome, the courts in this circuit have considered the following additional factors in determining whether a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable: "(1) the plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the extent to which the settlement will enable parties to avoid unanticipated 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 arms' length bargaining between experienced counsel; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion." Lazaro-Gareia v. Sengupta Food Servs., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167991 at *2 (SDNY, Dec. 15, 2015), quoting, Wolinsky v. Scholastic, 900 F.Supp.2d 332, 335 (SDNY, 2012).

Employer Strategies

Employers have adjusted FLSA settlement agreements after Cheeks in several ways to offer certain protections to themselves. Several courts in the Southern District have held that a mutual release of claims is acceptable, as it ensures that "both the employees and the employer are walking away from their relationship up to that point in time without the potential for any further disputes." See Souza v. 65 St. Marks Bistro, No. 15-cv-327 (JLC), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151144, 2015 WL 7271747, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2015); see also Lola v. Skadden, No. 13-cv-5008 (RJS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12871, at **4-5 (SDNY, Feb. 3, 2016).

Moreover, where an employee asserts any additional non-FLSA claims (irrespective of their nature) against an employer, the settling parties can propose a bifurcated settlement structure, pursuant to which the parties would publicly file a settlement agreement with respect to the FLSA claim for court approval, and execute a separate settlement agreement with respect to the non-FLSA claims, which would remain confidential and not require the court's approval under Cheeks. See, e.g., Abrar v. 7-Eleven, 14-cv-6315 (ADS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50416, at *3 (EDNY, April 14, 2016) (approving a proposed bifurcated settlement structure); see also Panganiban v. Medex Diagnostic & Treatment Ctr., 15 Civ. 2588, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29158, at *8 (EDNY, March 7, 2016; holding that a settlement without FLSA claims need not be subject to the court's review).

One strategy that employers may exercise preemptively, prior to any wage and hour claims that may arise, is to incorporate an arbitration provision into their employment agreements with employees, requiring that any FLSA claims brought by any employee be arbitrated. In this regard, courts have held that FLSA claims are arbitrable. Moton v. Maplebear, 15 Civ. 8879 (CM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17643, at *17 (SDNY, Feb. 9, 2016), accord, Bynum v. Maplebear, 15-cv- 6263, 2016 U.S. Dist. 17644, at *31 (EDNY, Feb. 12, 2016) (JBW). In fact, Cheeks would only apply if court approval of an arbitration award is sought. Moton v. Maplebear, 15 Civ. 8879 (CM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *25.

Nevertheless, requiring judicial scrutiny of settlement agreements may serve as a potential roadblock to a party's willingness to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations of any FLSA claims, as the inability to maintain its confidentiality and intense judicial scrutiny may create tension between the underlying policy of the FLSA and the judicial policy of settlement promotion.


1. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes uniform national wage and hour standards. 29 U.S.C. §§206 and 207.

2. The lodestar calculation is used as a "'cross check' on the reasonableness of the requested percentage." Fujiwara v. Sushi Yasuda, 58 F.Supp.3d at 435, quoting Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000).

Previoulsy published in New York Law Journal December 8, 2016.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions