Owed Money for Overtime, Severance, Bonus, Commissions?
Called Today for a Free Consultation
610-647-5027
Philadelphia area employment
lawyers represent Pennsylvania
employees located in towns such
as Philadelphia, Rosemont, Wayne, Radnor, Narberth, Levittown, Ambler, Ardmore, Springfield, Flourtown, Ft. Washington, Villanova, Limerick, Gulph Mills, Swarthmore, Bristol and
Broomall and helps workers sue
for Unpaid Overtime.
 |
| Overtime Settlements Must Be Approved by Federal Judge |
Settlement Agreements Reached on Overtime Claims Brought Under the Fair Labor Standards Must be Approved by a Federal Judge
Most employment lawyers are aware that any settlement reached on an overtime lawsuit filed in federal court in Pennsylvania must be approved by the Judge presiding over the case before it is deemed binding and appropriate. This is in contrast to most (if not all) other employment litigation settlements, which do not require such judicial approval as a matter of course.
In analyzing the propriety of such a settlement agreement, the court will, at a minimum, examine the financial terms of the agreement as compared to the allegations made by the plaintiff, the scope of the Release contained within the agreement and the provision setting forth the amount of attorney's fees being paid to the plaintiff's counsel.
A Release in a Settlement Agreement in an FLSA Overtime Claim is Overbroad if it "Blindly" Includes a Release of All Potential Employment-Related Claims a Plaintiff Could Have Against His/Her Former Employer
 |
| Judge Robreno |
In a July 18, 2016 decision issued in Howard v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, who sits on the bench in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued a decision in which he partially denied such an Agreement because the Release therein encompassed any and all claims that the plaintiff could have against the defendant former employer. In doing so, Judge Robreno explained (bold, italic emphasis mine):
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that
Defendant terminated her employment in retaliation after she complained about
wage and overtime FLSA violations that she was experiencing. Yet, the proposed
Settlement Agreement asks Plaintiff to waive “any and all Claims” that
“concern[] the termination of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, including,
but not limited to, claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Pennsylvania wage and hour laws.” Settlement ¶ 5(a) (emphasis added). These
broad terms, for which the parties seek judicial approval, exceed the legal
basis of Plaintiff’s Complaint (i.e., wage and hour statutory protection) as
well as the factual basis of her Complaint (i.e., alleged retaliation by her
employer after she filed complaints with its HR department about wage and
overtime pay violations). Legally, the proposed release provisions would
preclude Plaintiff from bringing any future claim arising under statutes
including “but not limited to” the FLSA and Pennsylvania wage and hour laws.
Factually, the proposed release provisions would preclude Plaintiff from
bringing “any and all Claims” “concerning the termination of Plaintiff’s
employment.” If the Court blindly approved the waiver of “any and all Claims”
“concerning the termination of Plaintiff’s employment,” the Court risks
judicially endorsing a waiver of Plaintiff’s other statutorily protected rights
that may be implicated by an allegedly unlawful termination…And such judicial
endorsement exceeds the court’s judicial approval role under the FLSA.
Moreover, where a defendant has provided consideration for the release of a
plaintiff’s FLSA claims arising from a particular event, which is the case
here, the Court is without knowledge as to the value of those claims…The
release of an unknown claim based on a separate statutory cause of action
frustrates the fairness of the benefit otherwise provided under the proposed
Settlement Agreement. See id. Therefore, the Court will not, under the auspices
of its FLSA settlement approval duty, approve the release provision as drafted
in the proposed Settlement Agreement.
Additional Consideration May Be Necessary to Get a "Full Release" of an Overtime Claim Approved by a Federal Judge
While Judge Robreno's thoughtful and well-reasoned decision
in Howard made on its face have intellectual appeal to plaintiff's attorneys (who loathe "overbroad" Releases), it surely could make settling FLSA overtime cases more difficult.
When a former employer settles a lawsuit filed by its former employee, it wants to make sure that it will never again have to deal with the former employee on any issues relating to his/her former employment. Here, Judge Robreno is saying that a Release that "blindly" (i.e. without any explanation) attempts to provide such security to a defendant is not valid.
The solution may be to include within any such Release some "additional consideration" in exchange for the plaintiff's agreement to waive all claims he or she may have against the defendant. It is likely an insubstantial sum would be required, but still would have to be a payment that was above and beyond that sum being paid in connection with the underlying overtime claim.
The economic realities of an additional consideration solution may be unpleasant to defendants (and their counsel), but it is a fair and equitable way of avoiding the difficulties presented to all parties by a decision such as Howard.
 |
| Additional Consideration the Solution? |
When a former employer settles a lawsuit filed by its former employee, it wants to make sure that it will never again have to deal with the former employee on any issues relating to his/her former employment. Here, Judge Robreno is saying that a Release that "blindly" (i.e. without any explanation) attempts to provide such security to a defendant is not valid.
The solution may be to include within any such Release some "additional consideration" in exchange for the plaintiff's agreement to waive all claims he or she may have against the defendant. It is likely an insubstantial sum would be required, but still would have to be a payment that was above and beyond that sum being paid in connection with the underlying overtime claim.
The economic realities of an additional consideration solution may be unpleasant to defendants (and their counsel), but it is a fair and equitable way of avoiding the difficulties presented to all parties by a decision such as Howard.
HERE
ARE SOME OTHER ARTICLES YOU MAY FIND WORTHWHILE:
Do I Have to Be Employed to
Get the Bonus or Commission I Earned in Pennsylvania?
Call 610-647-5027 for a Free Telephone Consultation
We are an employment lawyers who
represents employees who need an employment lawyer in Southeastern
Pennsylvania, including those working in Philadelphia County,
Delaware County, Montgomery County, Bucks County, Chester County, Berks
County and Lancaster County.
Thanks
for checking in with us.