Bozeman v. The City of Opp, Alabama et al

Filing 42

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/25/2015. (wcl, ) (Main Document 42 replaced on 6/25/2015) (wcl, ). Modified on 6/25/2015 to attach a corrected PDF document of the Opinion to correct a typographical error due to a clerical error (wcl, ).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
TRACY BOZEMAN,

THE
OPP
and
THE

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF OPP, ALABAMA, )
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, )
THE UTILITIES BOARD OF )
CITY OF OPP,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv1042-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
This cause is before the court on the joint motion
to approve a settlement between plaintiff Tracy Bozeman
and defendants City of Opp, Opp Utilities Department,
and the Utilities Board of the City of Opp.

The court

held an on-the-record conference call on the motion on
this date.

For the reasons that follow, the settlement

will be approved.
Plaintiff
violated

Bozeman

several

workplace,

alleged

federal

including

the

that

statutes
Equal

the

that

Pay

defendants

regulate

Act,

29

the

U.S.C.

§ 206(d).

The Equal Pay Act is codified as part of the

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219.
Bozeman’s Equal Pay Act claim sought damages for unpaid
wages.
Because the FLSA was enacted to protect workers
from the poor wages and long hours that can result from
great

inequalities

employers

and

in

bargaining
the

employees,

power

provisions

FLSA’s

between
are

mandatory and, except in two narrow circumstances, are
generally

not

modification

subject

by

to

contract

bargaining,

or

waiver,

settlement.

or

Brooklyn

Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945).

The

first

may

exception

supervise

the

is

that

payment

the

of

Secretary

back

wages

of
to

Labor

employees;

employees who accept such payments waive their rights
to bring suits for liquidated damages, provided the
employer

pays

the

back

amount

in

full.

29

U.S.C.

§ 216(c); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States,
679

F.2d

1350,

1352–53

(11th

2

Cir.1982);

see

also

Stalnaker v. Novar Corp., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1262
(M.D. Ala. 2003) (Thompson, J.).
The second route to settlement, and the one that is
applicable

here,

occurs

when

an

employee

brings

a

private action for back wages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),
the employee and employer present a proposed settlement
to the district court, and the district court reviews
the judgment and enters it as “a stipulated judgment.”
Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354-1355 (“Settlements
may be permissible in the context of a suit brought by
employees

under

the

FLSA

for

back

wages

because

initiation of the action by the employees provides some
assurance of an adversarial context.

The employees are

likely to be represented by an attorney who can protect
their rights under the statute.
submit

a

settlement

settlement
is

more

to

the

likely

Thus, when the parties

court
to

for

reflect

approval,
a

the

reasonable

compromise of disputed issues than a mere waiver of
statutory

rights

brought

about

overreaching.”).

3

by

an

employer’s

In reviewing a settlement of an FLSA private claim,
a

court

must

fairness,”

id.

“scrutiniz[e]
at

1353,

the

and

settlement

determine

that

for
the

settlement is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a
bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.”

Id. at 1355.

“If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit does reflect
a

reasonable

coverage

or

compromise

over

computation

of

issues,
back

such

wages,

as

FLSA

that

are

actually in dispute[,] ... the district court [may]
approve the settlement in order to promote the policy
of encouraging settlement of litigation.”

Id. at 1354.

In this case, there are bona fide disputes over
FLSA provisions, namely whether Bozeman and a similarly
situated male comparator performed “equal work on jobs
the

performance

of

which

require[d]

equal

skill,

effort, and responsibility, and which [were] performed
under similar working conditions,” as is required for
recovery

under

the

statute.

§§ 206(d)(1), 216.

4

29

U.S.C.

After
settlement

speaking

with

agreement,

Bozeman

the

court

and

reviewing

finds

that

the
the

settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of these
bona

fide

disputes

and

that

Bozeman

knowingly

voluntarily entered into the settlement.
receive

$ 25,000

from

the

defendants,

and

Bozeman will
and

she

will

release the defendants from any claims and causes of
action that she has or could have against them up to
the date of settlement, including claims arising from
her employment.

Under the terms of her contingency-fee

agreement, Bozeman’s counsel will be paid half of her
award, that is, $ 12,500, and this amount will cover
any costs that Bozeman’s attorneys have incurred in
filing and prosecuting this action.

Upon consideration

of Bozeman’s testimony and the court’s knowledge of the
facts and circumstances of this case, the court will
approve the settlement.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 25th day of June, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE