The opinion
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY □□□□□
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #:
DATE FILED: 10/20/2023
Claudine Brown, ee
Plaintiff,
1:22-cv-10144 (SDA)
-against-
ORDER
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center,
Defendant.
STEWART D. AARON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This case contains claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On September 4, 2023, the
parties advised the Court that a settlement in principle has been reached on all issues. (PI.’s
9/4/23 Ltr., ECF No. 25.) On September 6, 2023, the Court entered an Order directing the parties
to provide a copy of the settlement agreement to the Court together with a letter explaining why
the settlement, is fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d
199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015). (See 9/6/2023 Order, ECF No. 26.) On October 6, 2023, an Order was
issued on the parties’ consent referring disposition of this matter to the undersigned pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Consent, ECF No. 29.)
On October 19, 2023, the parties submitted their proposed settlement agreement and
related papers. (Settlement Agmt., ECF No. 31-1.) Having reviewed the proposed settlement, the
Court finds that it is fair and reasonable, given both the nature and scope of Plaintiff’s individual
claims as well as the risks and expenses involved in additional litigation. See Wolinsky v.
Scholastic, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
The Court notes that the settlement agreement contains a mutual general release, which
generally is disfavored. See, e.g., Basurto, v. Original Ray’s Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-09748 (VEC),
2020 WL 6151267, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2020). In the present case, the Court finds that mutual
general releases are acceptable because Plaintiff no longer works for Defendant (see Compl., ECF
No. 1, ¶ 14; Answer, ECF No. 12, ¶ 14) and Plaintiff was represented by experienced counsel. See
Khan v. Young Adult Inst., Inc., No. 18 -CV-02824 (HBP), 2018 WL 6250658, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.
29, 2018) (“General releases are permissible in FLSA settlements where plaintiff is no longer
employed by defendants, the releases were negotiated by competent counsel for both sides and
the releases are mutual.”); see also Lola v. Skadden, Arps, Meagher, Slate & Flom LLP, No. 13-CV-
05008 (RJS), 2016 WL 922223, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2016) (“[T]here is nothing inherently unfair
about a release of claims in an FLSA settlement.”).
In addition, Plaintiff seeks approval of $17,339 in attorney’s fees, which is one-third of the
total settlement amount, and an additional $482 in costs. (See Pl.’s 10/19/23 Ltr., ECF No. 31, at
3; see also Settlement Agmt. ¶ 1.) Courts in this Circuit typically approve attorney’s fees in the
amount of one-third of the total recovery. See, e.g., Ramos v. DNC Food Serv. Corp., No. 19-CV-
02967 (VSB), 2022 WL 576300, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2022) (citing cases). In line with that
precedent, the Court finds that the requested attorney’s fees are fair and reasonable. In reaching
this conclusion, the Court makes no findings with respect to the reasonableness of counsel’s
hourly rates.
For these reasons, the Court approves the settlement. This action is dismissed with
prejudice and without costs except as may be stated in the settlement agreement. The Court will
retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
requested to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
October 20, 2023
STEWART D. AARON
United States Magistrate Judge