Lyons v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.
Filing
21
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/3/2014. (wcl, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
DAVID E. LYONS, Jr.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC.
)
d/b/a LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE, )
)
Defendant.
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12cv278-MHT
(WO)
OPINION
In this lawsuit brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”), as amended,
29 U.S.C. § 201 et
seq., the court has before it the parties’ joint motion
for approval of an amended settlement agreement.
The
court also has before it the amended settlement agreement
signed by all parties.
Today, a hearing was held on the
motion for approval.
Plaintiff David E. Lyons, Jr., filed his complaint
against defendant Darden Restaurants, Inc. in federal
court, asserting that the company improperly classified
him as an exempt employee and denied him overtime pay
based on that incorrect status.
Jurisdiction is proper
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (FLSA) and 28 U.S.C. §
1331 (federal question).
Later, the parties filed the pending motion for
approval of the amended settlement agreement.
When an
employee brings a private action under the FLSA and
presents a proposed settlement agreement to the district
court,
“the
district
court
may
enter
a
stipulated
judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.”
Lynn’s FoodStores, Inc. v. United States Dept. Of Labor,
679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982).
At the hearing on the motion, the parties’ counsel
represented that the agreement was fair and reasonable.
Further, Lyons stated that he was satisfied with the
agreement, which provides that he is to receive $ 4000,
with $ 400 of that to go to his attorney.
Further, the
parties represented that they had deleted provisions in
the
agreement
that
would
have
prevented
Lyons
from
disclosing the terms and existence of the settlement
2
unless required under law and would have prevented him
from bringing legal claims unrelated to FLSA.
See Hogan
v. Allstate Beverage Co., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1274,
1283-84 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (Thompson, J.) (finding that
confidentiality provisions unequally benefit the employer
and frustrate FLSA goals); id. at 1284 (“[A]n employer is
not entitled to use an FLSA claim (a matter arising from
the
employer’s
failing
to
comply
with
the
FLSA)
to
leverage a release from liability unconnected to the
FLSA.”) (quoting Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729 F. Supp. 2d
1346, 1351 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (Merryday, J.)); on July 3,
2014;
Todd v. Daewon Am., Inc., 2014 WL 2608454 (M.D.
Ala. June 11, 2014) (Thompson, J.)
(“the parties must
have some reason, other than their own mere desire, to
override
the
public's
interest
in
open
judicial
records”); see also Elizabeth Wilkins, Silent Workers,
Disappearing Rights: Confidential Settlements and the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 34 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.
109, 113 (2013) (“Congress’s intent to protect both the
3
public’s interest in a well-functioning economy and the
vulnerable worker subject to unequal bargaining dynamics
militates against secret settlements”).
Having reviewed the amended agreement and considered
the
representations
made
by
the
parties
and
their
counsel, the court finds that the parties have reached an
agreement based on a negotiated, good-faith compromise of
a
bona-fide
dispute
over
application
of
relevant
provisions of the FLSA and of wages owed under the FLSA
based
on
the
assertion
that
Lyons
compensated for his overtime work.
was
not
properly
The court, therefore,
finds that the amended agreement reflects a fair and
reasonable resolution of the dispute between the parties.
The
court
will
grant
approval
of
granting
the
the
amended
agreement.
***
An
appropriate
judgment
motion
for
approval of the proposed amended settlement agreement
will be entered.
DONE, this the 3rd day of July, 2014.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?