UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL GORGA, DEMETRIUS MCFADDEN, and KEVIN RYAN, Plaintiffs, 22 Civ. 8638 (JHR) -v.- ORDER CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. JENNIFER H. REARDEN, District Judge: On April 10, 2023, the parties to this action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”),

et seq., alerted the Court that they have reached a settlement. See ECF No. 30. Under the FLSA, an employer who violates the requirement that overtime wages be paid must pay both the unpaid overtime compensation and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. See

§ 216(b). In the event of a settlement and dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement — including any proposed attorney’s fee award — must be scrutinized by the Court to ensure that it is fair. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2015) (holding that “stipulated dismissals settling FLSA claims with prejudice require the approval of the district court or the DOL to take effect”); Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2012) (identifying factors a court may consider in evaluating the fairness and reasonableness of a proposed FLSA settlement and the reasonableness of a proposed attorney’s fee award).1 The parties are reminded that they have the option to consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned Magistrate Judge (the appropriate form for which is available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/node/754), in which case the assigned Magistrate Judge would decide whether to approve the settlement. If all parties consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge, they should file a fully executed version of the consent form on the docket by April 28, 2023. In addition, the parties are advised that the Court will not approve any settlement agreement containing any of the following provisions: • A confidentiality provision, unless the parties can show that there are reasons, specific to the case, sufficient to overcome the common law right of access to judicial documents. See

(explaining the common law right of public access as it relates to 1 Judicial approval is not required for a settlement of FLSA claims by way of a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment. See Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2019). settlement agreements in FLSA cases); see also Sanz v. Johny Utah 51 LLC, No. 14-CV- 4380 (JMF),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2015); e A release or waiver provision that releases or waives claims that have not accrued or claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters, unless the parties can show that there are reasons, specific to this case, justifying such a broad release. See, e.g., Lopez v. Nights of Cabiria, LLC,

(S.D.N-Y. 2015); or e Aclause that bars a plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant unless it includes a carve-out for truthful statements about a plaintiff's experience in litigating his case, or unless the parties can show that there are reasons, specific to this case, justifying a non-disparagement clause without such a carve-out. See, e.g., Zapata v. Bedoya, No. 14-CV-4114,

, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2016). In the event that the settlement agreement does contain any of these provisions, by April 28, 2023, the parties shall file a joint letter indicating whether the parties want the Court, in the alternative, to consider for approval the settlement agreement with the provision(s) stricken (in which case, the Court would, absent good cause, docket both the parties’ joint letter and the settlement agreement itself — notwithstanding any confidentiality provision). Cf Fisher v. SD Protection Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2020) (holding that a district court may approve or reject a settlement of FLSA claims, but may not modify the agreement itself).

SO ORDERED. Dated: April 13, 2023 New York, New York

JENNIFER H. REARDEN United States District Judge