Order | Filed: October 01, 2026
| Entered: October 01, 2026
Guaman v. Reyes & Reyes Corp.
Labor: Fair Standards | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Settlement
ORDER granting DE 18 Motion for Settlement. The parties filed the motion at DE 18 for settlement approval, and the Court or the Department of Labor must approve a settlement dismissing FLSA claims with prejudice. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 200 (2d Cir. 2015). The parties therefore must satisfy the Court that their settlement agreement is "fair and reasonable." Rillera v. Andy Frain Servs., Inc., No. 22-CV-7357, 2024 WL 3677935, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2024) (citation omitted).
Having reviewed the settlement agreement (DE 18 -1), the Court finds that "the agreement reflects a reasonable compromise of disputed issues and not simply a waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer's overreaching." Rodriguez-Reyes v. S. Glazer's Wine & Spirits, LLC, No. 24-CV-06873, 2025 WL 1897867, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 20, 2025) (quotations and citation omitted). In reaching this conclusion, the Court has considered, among other things, (1) that the settlement amount as reflected in the settlement agreement is substantial and fair in light of litigation risk and is within the possible range of recovery; (2) that the attorneys' fees and costs portion of the settlement is reasonable and commensurate with the degree of success obtained; (3) that the release provided in the agreement is limited in scope; and (4) that the settlement agreement does not impose a duty of confidentiality. See Fisher v. SD Protection Inc., 948 F.3d 593, 606-07 (2d Cir. 2020) ((instructing that the factors set forth in Wolinksy v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) guide the fairness inquiry).
Under the circumstances in this case, the Court finds that the total settlement amount of $7,000 is fair and reasonable. The net amount to be received by Plaintiff (after attorney's fees and costs) represents "approximately 6% of her claimed unpaid wages," which is on the lower end of recovery amounts in other FLSA cases in this Circuit, but still within the generally approved range. DE 18 at 3; see, e.g., Tapia v. Nations Roof East, LLC, No. 21-CV-1358, 2022 WL 2104245, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2022) (discussing cases approving settlements ranging from 25% to 7% of total recovery amount); Prudente v. Prohealth Connect, LLC, No. 24-CV-7398 (VSB), 2026 WL 2070046, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2026) (approving a recovery of 6.6% of plaintiffs claimed unpaid wages, as "the range of possible recovery is only one factor relevant to settlement approval") (citing Penafiel v. Rincon Ecuatoriano, Inc., No. 15-CV-112, 2015 WL 7736551, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2015) (approving a FLSA settlement providing for a payment of 4% of potential recovery, where the other Wolinsky factors weighed in favor of approval)).
Moreover, "there is a bona fide dispute between the parties regarding Plaintiff's wage and hour claims" (DE 18 at 2), and the Court finds that the terms of the settlement agreement are fair and reasonable and otherwise satisfy the factors set forth in Wolinksy. See Fisher, 948 F.3d at 600.
Finally, the Court finds that the requested attorneys' fees and costs are reasonable under the circumstances. See, e.g., Rodriguez-Reyes, 2025 WL 1897867, at *1 (noting that courts routinely award one third of a settlement fund as a reasonable fee in FLSA cases).
The settlement is therefore approved, and the motion for settlement approval is GRANTED as follows: Plaintiff shall receive $4,008.70, and Plaintiff's counsel shall receive $2,991.30 for fees and costs. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst on 10/1/2026. (GAW) Modified on 10/1/2026 (GAW).