Smith v. Shoreline Transportation of Alabama, LLC.
Filing
23
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/18/14. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
RODERICK SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHORELINE TRANSPORTATION
OF ALABAMA, LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:13cv402-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 settlement agreement.
The court also has
before it the settlement agreement and full and final
general release of all claims signed by all parties.
Plaintiff Roderick Smith filed his complaint against
defendant Shoreline Transportation of Alabama, LLC in
federal court, asserting that the company had failed to
pay him wages and overtime owed under FLSA.
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 settlement agreement.
The court held a
hearing to discuss this motion and address the settlement
agreement.
At
this
hearing,
the
parties’
counsel
represented that the agreement was fair and reasonable.
Further, Smith stated that he was satisfied with the
agreement.
However, the court stated its concern with
the provision that would prevent Smith from disclosing
the terms and existence of the settlement unless required
under law and with the provision in which Smith would
release Shoreline from legal claims unrelated to FLSA.
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).
2
Having
reviewed the agreement, the court finds that the parties
have reached an agreement based on a negotiated, goodfaith 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 Smith was not
properly
compensated
for
his
work
and
overtime.
Furthermore, the court finds, with two exceptions, that
the agreement reflects a fair and reasonable resolution
of the dispute between the parties.
The court will only grant approval of the agreement
with two modifications.
First, the court rejects the
confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement,
with
result
that
Smith
would
not
be
prevented
from
disclosing the existence and terms of the settlement
agreement, including the amount of the settlement.
See
Hogan v. Allstate Beverage Co., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d
1274, 1283-4 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (Thompson, J.) (finding
that confidentiality provisions unequally benefit the
employer and frustrate FLSA goals); Dees v. Hydradry,
3
Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1242; 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 public’s interest
in a well-functioning economy and the vulnerable worker
subject to unequal bargaining dynamics militates against
secret settlements”).
Second, the court rejects the agreement’s provision
requiring Smith to release all discrimination claims
beyond
the
FLSA
claim
raised
in
this
matter.
The
provision requires release of all discrimination claims,
including those arising under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a, 2000e
et al, amongst others.
waiver
overbroad
and
The court finds this pervasive
unfair.
“An
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.” Hogan,
4
821 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (quoting Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729
F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1351 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (Merryday, J.)).
Such provisions take advantage of workers seeking to
recover backpay who may be willing to waive unknown
claims in order to access withheld wages as soon as
possible.
Id.
With the understanding that the proposed settlement
incorporates the two modifications discussed above, the
court
will
and
an
appropriate judgment will be entered to that effect.
Of
course,
if
approve
the
the
proposed
parties
do
settlement,
not
agree
with
the
modifications they can ask within the time allowed by law
that the judgment be set aside.
DONE, this the 18th day of February, 2014.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
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?