For Immediate Release
On February 26, 2016, the Metropolitan Museum of Art issued a press release, falsely announcing a “settlement” of the class action lawsuit that challenges the Museum’s admission policy. In fact, there is no settlement. Class actions cannot be settled in the absence of two approvals by the Court and, in this case, the class action lawyers only requested the first such approval three days after the Museum wrongly announced that it had been given and finalized.
Court approval of a proposed settlement is not a mere formality, but rather must be litigated. As explained by Michael Hiller, who represents plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit against the Museum, “the most that can be said is that the Museum has developed a proposed deal in one of the two lawsuits concerning the admission policy, and the proposed deal will be considered by the Court in about four months.”
Mr. Hiller, whose clients filed the first lawsuit against the Museum concerning its admissions policy, refused to agree to the deal proposed by the Museum. According to Hiller, his clients “were originally part of the negotiations, but withdrew after discussions led them to believe that the resolution sought by the Museum was completely unreasonable.” Hiller maintains that, “based upon the proposed deal struck last week, the decision to withdraw from negotiations was the right one – this is an absolutely terrible deal.”
Hiller has prepared a summary entitled “Why We Are Opposing the Proposed Settlement with the Metropolitan Museum.” In it, Hiller contends that members of the class and the general public would not receive any real benefit from the proposed settlement other than a very slight modification of the Museum’s sign which, as reflected in the proposed agreement, the Museum can change after just 78 months — or earlier if certain “unspecified governmental approvals” are obtained. “Meanwhile,” Hiller continues, “the Museum would receive a full and permanent discharge of all liability for its pattern of illegal and deceptive misconduct, even if it were to nullify the supposed deal the day after it were approved by the Court.”
The problems for the Museum are not limited to its misleading press release concerning a settlement that didn’t actually happen; Hiller also took issue with the Museum’s implication that the Courts have ruled that the Museum has the right to charge for admission. Hiller confirms that “no Court has ever granted the Museum permission to charge admission. Although the Museum repeatedly has argued that the statute barring the Museum from charging admission has been superseded or was otherwise replaced, no Court ever accepted that argument.”
Pat Nicholson, one of the plaintiffs Hiller represents, voiced her disappointment with the proposed settlement, emphasizing that it would “violate the bargain struck long ago between the Museum and the people, by which the Museum agreed to provide free admission to the public in exchange for public funding of the Museum and free rent, maintenance and security for its building. The taxpayers have lived up to their end of the bargain. The Museum has not.”
Contact: Michael S. Hiller (646) 408-5995
Patricia Nicholson (917) 597-2283
