Kelley v. Venture Express, Inc. et al

Filing 36

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/8/13. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
DEMETRI KELLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
VENTURE EXPRESS, INC.,
and ALLEN’S CARTAGE, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12cv564-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
This matter is before the court on the parties'
joint motion for approval of settlement agreement, of
payments, and of dismissal with prejudice.

The court

has before it the settlement agreement and full and
final

general

release

of

all

claims

signed

by

all

parties.
On June 29, 2012, plaintiff Demetri Kelley filed
his complaint against defendants Venture Express, Inc.,
and

Allen’s

Cartage,

Inc.,

asserting

that

they

had

failed to pay him overtime owed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”).

On April 2, 2013, the parties filed the pending
motion for approval of the settlement agreement. The
agreement included a payment to Kelley for settlement
of

the

FLSA

attorneys'

claims,

fees

a

payment

incurred

in

to

his

counsel

prosecuting

the

for
FLSA

claims, and a payment to Kelley $ 50.00 for release and
waiver of all non-FLSA claims.
The court held a hearing on April 26, 2013, to
discuss

this

agreement.

motion
At

this

and

address

hearing,

the

the

settlement

parties’

counsel

represented that the agreement was fair and reasonable
and asked for the court’s approval of it.

Further,

Kelley stated that he was satisfied with the agreement.
At the hearing, the court stated that it would not
approve

the

portions

of

the

settlement

agreement

waiving and releasing the non-FLSA claims for $ 50.00,
and the parties responded that that portion would be
withdrawn from the settlement agreement.
The

court

also

stated

that

it

would

unseal

the

settlement agreement, and Venture Express and Allen’s

2

Cartage

responded

settlement.

that

The

agreement’s

court

this

would

expressed

confidentiality

not

affect

the

about

the

concern

provision.

The

parties

assured the court, however, that the confidentiality
provision,
prevent

as

they

Kelley

mutually

from

understand

disclosing

does

not

terms

the

it,

of

the

settlement with anyone, including coworkers; nor does
it prevent him from disclosing the legal theories he
pursued

in

this

litigation.

Rather,

the

confidentiality provision is to be narrowly construed
as

precluding

information

and

Kelley

from

trade

secrets

disclosing
he

may

personnel

have

learned

through discovery in this case.
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).

Here, the court finds that the parties have

3

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 back wages owed
under the FLSA based on Kelley’s assertion that he was
not

properly

Furthermore,
reflects

compensated
the

a

fair

court
and

for

finds

overtime
that

reasonable

worked.

the

agreement

resolution

of

the

dispute between the parties.
The court, however, will not approve the portions
of

the

settlement

agreement

providing

for

waiver

of

non-FLSA claims for $ 50.00 for reasons expressed in
Hogan v. Allstate Beverage Co., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d
1274,

1284

(M.D.

Ala.

2011)

(Thompson,

J.)

and

in

Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1351
(M.D.

Fla.

2010)

representation
hearing

on

of

April

(Merryday,

counsel
26,

for

2013,

J.),
all

those

and,

parties

provisions

longer part of the settlement agreement.

upon
at

the

are

no

The court

also rejects the parties’ request that the settlement
agreement

be

sealed;

the

settlement

4

agreement

is

a

public record and will not be sealed.

See Stalnaker v.

Novar Corp., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1263-64 (M.D. Ala.
2003) (Thompson, J.); see also Dees v. Hydradry Inc.,
706

F.

Supp.

(Merryday, J.).
provision

with

2d

1227,

1244-45

(M.D.

Fla.

2010)

The court approves the confidentiality
the

understanding

that

the

provision

does not prevent Kelley from disclosing the terms of
this settlement agreement, including the amount of the
settlement.

See Hogan, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 1283; Dees,

706 F. Supp. 2d at 1242.

With the understanding that

the proposed settlement incorporates the modifications
discussed above, the court will approve the proposed
settlement.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 8th day of May, 2013.

____/s/ Myron H. Thompson______
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE