Civil practice – Settlement – FLSA

Listen to this article

Where a settlement agreement has been challenged by the defendants, the agreement should be enforced because there is no merit to the defendants’ argument that no agreement was reached and that the counsel fees that the defendants agreed to pay are unreasonable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

“… Defendants sought to reopen this case and schedule it for trial, claiming that (1) they never reached an agreement to settle the case, and (2) if they did reach an agreement, that agreement was unenforceable because it ‘violate[d] a federal statute,’ namely, the Fair Labor Standards Act (‘FLSA’), 29 U.S.C. §§201–19. …

“First, as to the argument that no agreement was reached, only weeks ago, the First Circuit reiterated the rule that neither a ‘refusal to sign a subsequent writing memorializing the orally agreed upon terms’ nor ‘a party’s later change of heart’ is adequate to ‘undo a knowing and voluntary’ oral settlement containing all material terms. Maccarone v. Siemens Indus., Inc., 165 F.4th 640, 644 (1st Cir. 2026). The record of proceedings before Judge Levenson reflects an enforceable oral agreement, containing all material terms, to which all parties assented. …

“Defendants next argue that because the FLSA permits the Court to award attorney fees to a plaintiff who obtains a judgment in litigation, but requires those fees to be ‘reasonable,’ 29 U.S.C. §216(b), the Court must review the parties’ settlement agreement to determine whether the attorney fees that Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs are reasonable, and then set it aside if they are not. … Judge Levenson’s analysis is thorough and accurate on this point, and the Court will not repeat his analysis here. … The Court emphasizes, however, that the basic flaw in Defendants’ argument is that the FLSA’s reasonableness requirement applies to fees awarded by the Court after a judgment is entered, not to fees agreed upon by the parties in a settlement contract. …

“… The parties entered into a binding agreement, and Defendants have not put forth any legal reason for the Court to set it aside. Still, for the avoidance of doubt, the Court writes to clarify two points emphasized in Defendants’ objections: the public policy and ‘unclean hands’ arguments raised in Defendants’ motion. … These objections seem rooted in Defendants’ belief that Plaintiffs’ position on certain issues in this case, namely whether Plaintiffs were salaried employees or wage earners, … and whether Plaintiffs were properly paid overtime and tips, … are dishonest and amount to misconduct on the part of their counsel. … The fact, however, that Plaintiffs dispute Defendants’ version of facts or interpret the law differently does not constitute misconduct.”

Depasquale v. Orange Peel Bakery, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-095-26) (6 pages) (Burroughs, J.) (Civil Action No. 24-cv-10231-ADB) (Feb. 23, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.