Vidal v. Earth Fare, Inc.
ORDER GRANTING 34 motion for settlement approval; ORDERING that the 34 settlement agreement submitted to the court is APPROVED, and the complaint is DISMISSED, with prejudice, costs taxed as paid. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 11/5/12. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EARTH FARE, INC.,
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv905-WHA
This cause is before the court on a Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Agreement (Doc.
#34), negotiated on a claim brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§
201 to 219, for unpaid overtime wages. For the reasons assigned below, the court approves the
parties’ settlement and dismisses the complaint, with prejudice.
The court first notes that each party, plaintiff Anthony Vidal and defendant Earth Fare,
Inc., are represented by competent counsel who are affiliated with firms which have reputations
for expertise in FLSA litigation.
Based upon the representations of the parties contained in the Motion and in the
Settlement Agreement executed by counsel and by the Plaintiff personally, the court finds no
need for a hearing.
The evidence laid before the court is that Anthony Vidal was employed by Earth Fare in a
Montgomery, Alabama retail grocery store. He was the manager of the “Grocery Department,” a
distinct division with the store. He managed at least two employees and exercised supervisory
and disciplinary responsibilities for those employees. He interviewed and hired at least one
employee during the term of his employment. He was paid a salary of more than $455.00 a
week. These elements would appear to qualify Vidal for the “executive” exemption found at
Section 15 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 215, and the Department of Labor regulations issued
The dispute in the case appears to be whether Vidal’s primary job functions were those
which establish a worker as an “executive” who is exempt from the overtime pay requirements
found at Section 15 of the FLSA. It is conceded by Vidal and his counsel that Vidal was indeed
engaged in executive functions, but Vidal maintains that he spent most of his work time engaged
in the work of a non-exempt stock clerk. Earth Fare for its part admits that all of its managers,
including a grocery department manager like Vidal, do engage in non-exempt, incidental work
tasks, but that work is not a primary element of the job description as written or as implemented.
The matter of hours worked in excess of forty in weeks spanning the term of Vidal’s
employment, approximately fifteen months, was also in dispute. Earth Fare had no time records
for Vidal because it had qualified him as exempt from the maximum hour provisions of the
FLSA. Vidal had memorialized records of some overtime worked, but the majority of his
evidence was anecdotal and speculative.
Based on the positions of the parties, the genuine factual disputes, Earth Fare’s apparent
good faith attempt to comply with the FLSA in qualifying Vidal as exempt from overtime, and
the proposed substantial payment by Earth Fare to Vidal of $32,500.00, the court finds that the
settlement reached by the parties is fair and reasonable to the employee and is in substantial
compliance with the FLSA. See Lynn’s Foods Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th
Cir. 1982) (the court must evaluate the agreement to determine if it is “fair and reasonable” to the
employee; and, if the agreement is fair and reasonable to the employee, the court must evaluate
whether the agreement frustrates implementation of the FLSA. If the agreement satisfies both
conditions, courts within the Eleventh Circuit may approve settlements of FLSA claims.)
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion (Doc. #34) is GRANTED and it is hereby
ORDERED that the settlement agreement submitted to the court is APPROVED, and the
complaint is DISMISSED, with prejudice, costs taxed as paid.
Done this 5th day of November, 2012.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?