No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

How to Draft an FLSA-Compliant Settlement Agreement, Part 3

by Amanda Haverstick
November 20, 2015
in Compliance
How to Draft an FLSA-Compliant Settlement Agreement, Part 3

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure

Introduction

As previously introduced, the Second Circuit’s August 2015, Dorian Cheeks decision[1] confirmed two prevailing rules followed by the great majority of federal courts with respect to settlement agreement in FLSA wage claim litigation: (1) the court must scrutinize the terms of such an agreement and decide that it is fair and reasonable before the court may approve the agreement, and (2) absent such approval, the agreement will neither immunize the employer from future wage claims by the same employees, nor support a stipulated dismissal with prejudice of the underlying FLSA litigation under FRCP 41(a)(1).  Below we discuss recent court decisions that have applied these rules and refused to approve settlement agreements on the grounds that their confidentiality and nondisclosure (hereinafter, “nondisclosure”) clauses were incompatible with the FLSA.

General Presumption In Favor of Public Access

To begin, employers should understand that there is a general presumption in favor of public access to FLSA settlement agreements.  This presumption is a corollary to the majority rule that such agreements are legally invalid unless first reviewed and officially approved by the court – as the Second Circuit recognized and confirmed in Dorian Cheeks.  Indeed, the dispute in Dorian Cheeks came to the Second Circuit after parties had jointly requested dismissal of an FLSA action based on a confidential settlement agreement.  The district court rejected that request and instead issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the parties to “file a copy of the[ir] proposed settlement agreement on the public docket” and “show cause why the proposed agreement reflects a reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer’s overreaching.”[2]

Although the Second Circuit did not specifically discuss the “public docket” portion of the district court’s Order when affirming it (other than to note that the “public access” question was before it on appeal[3]), other courts have recognized that the “overwhelming majority of courts” require public docketing of FLSA settlement agreements.[4]  In denying motions for “in-camera” judicial review of such agreements and motions to file such agreements under seal, these courts have reasoned that the parties’ arguments for confidentiality – such as the need to protect the employers’ business interests, or concerns that disclosure would lead to frivolous copycat litigation, or would discourage settlements generally – all were insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access.[5]

The same principles underlying these court decisions have also guided courts’ review of the nondisclosure clauses contained within proposed FLSA settlement agreements.

Legal Standards Governing Nondisclosure Provisions

Absent unusual circumstances where a nondisclosure clause is sought by and will benefit the employee-plaintiff(s) (such as where public disclosure of the settlement agreement could threaten their ability to earn a living in a small industry, or reputation in a small community),[6] courts have generally rejected FLSA settlement agreement clauses that prevent the employee-plaintiff(s) from divulging the terms of the agreement or from discussing the facts underlying the case in general.[7]

Representative of recent court decisions is the March 30, 2015 ruling by the District Court for the Southern District of New York in Cabiria,[8] which the Second Circuit cited as an example of a district court properly rejecting a settlement agreement based on its inclusion of “a battery of highly restrictive confidentiality provisions” that were “in strong tension with the remedial purposes of the FLSA.”[9]  The agreement at issue: 

(1) barred the employee-plaintiffs “from discussing the settlement with anyone except their ‘immediate family members, financial advisors and attorneys … unless pursuant to subpoena or other compulsory legal process,’”

(2) required that both parties, “if asked about the status of the pending action or the [a]agreement,” “respond ‘solely by stating that The Parties’ dispute has been amicably resolved’” and

(3) “state[d] that plaintiffs ‘shall not directly or indirectly encourage, solicit or support third party, person or entity …with respect to any litigation, arbitration and/or civil action in which defendants could be implicated or discussed in any way, unless pursuant to subpoena or other compulsory legal process.’”[10]

The Cabiria court held that these provisions ran “afoul of the ‘public’s independent interest in assuring that employees’ wages are fair.’”[11]  The court explained that barring the plaintiffs from speaking about their experiences would “thwart[] Congress’s intent to ensure widespread compliance with the statute … by silencing the employee who has vindicated a disputed FLSA right.”[12]

The court also reasoned that although the settlement agreement would be “publicly available” from the court’s electronic docket, many of the workers whom the FLSA was designed to protect – such as those who were poorly educated or non-English speaking – were unlikely to access the agreement from the docket.[13]

The court elaborated that pragmatically, the best way for these workers to learn about their rights to proper wages was through co-workers or outside organizations and that the parties’ proposed non-disclosure provisions would block such information, inhibiting one of the FLSA’s primary goals:   ensuring that all workers are aware of their rights.[14]

The above rulings are consistent with those reached by other courts in jurisdictions throughout the country that have rejected inclusion of similar nondisclosure terms in FLSA litigation settlement agreements.[15]

Conclusion

Employers should consider these rulings when deciding whether to propose nondisclosure provisions in their FLSA settlement agreements in future cases.  Absent unusual circumstances, courts appear generally unlikely to approve such provisions.

[1] Dorian Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, 796 F.3d 199, 203-06 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Dorian Cheeks”).    Hereinafter, to avoid needless repetition, we adopt by reference all defined from Parts 1 and 2 of this series –which are available here and here, respectively.

[2] No. 2:12-cv-04199-JS-ARL, Dkt. 17 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2014), aff’d, 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015).

[3] Dorian Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 201.

[4] Lopez v. Nights of Cabiria, — F. Supp. 3d –, 2015 WL 1455689, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2015) (“Cabiria”); Green v. Hepaco, LLC, 2014 WL 2624900, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. June 12, 2014) (surveying cases).

[5] See, e.g., Pollock v. Byrider Finance, LLC, 2015 WL 4040400 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2015);  Adams v. Bayview Asset Mngt., LLC, 11 F. Supp. 3d 474 (E.D. Pa. 2014); Snook v. Valley OB-GYN Clinic, P.C., 2014 WL 7369904 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2014); Green, 2014 WL 2624900; Alewel v. Dex One Serv., Inc., 2013 WL 6858504 (D. Kan. Dec. 30, 2013); Joo v. Kitchen Table, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 643 (S.D.N.Y.2011); Scott v. Memory Co., LLC, 2010 WL 4683621 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 10, 2010).

[6] See, e.g., Luker v. Wilcox Hosp. Bd., 2014 WL 3518386 (S.D. Ala. July 16, 2014); Crabtree v. Volkert, Inc., 2013 WL 593500 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 14, 2013).

[7] Although beyond the scope of this column, there has also been a rash of recent regulatory agency activity that impacts the permissibility of nondisclosure provisions in all types of employment agreements (including settlement agreements in non-FLSA cases), particularly agreements involving financial services industry employers and employers that maintain federal contracts. For a comprehensive discussion on this topic, see Amanda D. Haverstick, ‘Revising Nondisclosure and Nondisparagement Clauses,’ The Legal Intelligencer (July 22, 2015) (analyzing recent actions by regulatory agencies – including the Securities and Exchange Commission, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Office of Inspector General – that have denounced all types of employment law agreements that containing overly broad confidentiality and/or nondisparagement provisions).

[8] 2015 WL 1455689.

[9] 796 F.3d at 206.

[10] Cabiria, 2015 WL 1455689, at *2.

[11] Id., at *5 (quotation omitted).

[12] Id. (emphasis added).

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] See, e.g., Alvarez v. Michael Anthony George Constr. Corp., 2015 WL 3646663 (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2015); Green, 2014 WL 2624900; Pariente v. CLC Resorts & Devels., Inc., 2014 WL 6389756 (M.D. Fl. Nov. 14, 2014); Briggins v. Elwood Tri, Inc., 3 F. Supp. 3d 1277 (N.D. Ala. 2014); Galvez v. Americlean Servs. Corp., 2012 WL 1715689 (E.D. Va. May 15, 2012); Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (M.D. Fl. 2010).


Previous Post

FCPA Enforcement: Corporate Crime and Punishment

Next Post

Terrorism – A Tectonic Shift?

Amanda Haverstick

Amanda Haverstick

Amanda Haverstick is Counsel in the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith LLP.  She has practiced labor and employment law for nearly 20 years, defending companies in all forms of employment litigation and providing day-to-day advice on how to avoid such litigation. A significant portion of Amanda’s practice has been dedicated to FLSA collective actions, including defending a three-week federal district court jury trial in one such action involving misclassification claims by approximately 400 retail bank managers – resulting in a full defense verdict – and successfully petitioning the United States Supreme Court for certiorari in an employer’s challenge to class certification in an Illinois state wage law action under FRCP 23(b)(3) – resulting in the High Court’s vacating the certification award.  Amanda may be contacted at ahaverstick@reedsmith.com.

Related Posts

boris johnson resigns as UK prime minister

Report: Most Countries Failing to Stop Corruption

by Staff and Wire Reports
February 2, 2023

Denmark remained the least corrupt country in the world for the fifth year running, according to the recently released Transparency...

exec fired

44% of Companies Say They’ve Disciplined Execs for Ethics Breaches

by Staff and Wire Reports
February 2, 2023

More than two-fifths of companies (44%) say they have fired or disciplined senior leadership for unethical conduct in the past...

clausematch ai

Clausematch Releases Knowledge Graph to Drive Digitization of Regulation With AI

by Corporate Compliance Insights
February 2, 2023

Global RegTech provider Clausematch has released its digital knowledge graph in open source, allowing regulators and financial service companies to...

logicgate_climbchannel

LogicGate Hopes to Expand RiskCloud’s EMEA Reach

by Corporate Compliance Insights
February 2, 2023

Risk and compliance provider LogicGate is expanding its international presence thanks to a new partnership with Climb Channel Solutions, a...

Next Post
Terrorism – A Tectonic Shift?

Terrorism - A Tectonic Shift?

Compliance Job Interview Q&A

Jump to a Topic

AML Anti-Bribery Anti-Corruption Artificial Intelligence (AI) Automation Banking Board of Directors Board Risk Oversight Business Continuity Planning California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Code of Conduct Communications Management Corporate Culture COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Culture of Ethics Cybercrime Cyber Risk Data Analytics Data Breach Data Governance DOJ Download Due Diligence Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) ESG FCPA Enforcement Actions Financial Crime Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) GDPR HIPAA Know Your Customer (KYC) Machine Learning Monitoring RegTech Reputation Risk Risk Assessment SEC Social Media Risk Supply Chain Technology Third Party Risk Management Tone at the Top Training Whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT