Chappell et al v. Daeho Logistics Industry Co., Ltd. Corp. (JOINT ASSIGN) (MAG2)

Filing 30

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/20/2017. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
BRANDON CHAPPELL, and
MICHAEL MASTILLO,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
DAEHO LOGISTICS INDUSTRY
CO., LTD. CORP.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:16cv237-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
This cause is before the court on the joint motion
to approve a settlement plaintiffs Brandon Chappell and
Michael Mastillo have with defendant Daeho Logistics
Industry Co., Ltd. Corp.

The court held a hearing on

the motion in court on April 20, 2017.

For the reasons

that follow, the settlement will be approved.
Chappell and Mastillo alleged that Daeho violated
the

Fair

§§ 201-219.

Labor

Standards

Act

(FLSA),

29

U.S.C.

Their FLSA claim sought damages for unpaid

minimum wage and overtime compensation.

Because the FLSA was enacted to protect workers
from the poor wages and long hours that can result from
great

inequalities

in

bargaining

power

between

employers and employees, the statute’s provisions are
mandatory and, except in two narrow circumstances, are
generally

not

subject

to

bargaining,

modification by contract or settlement.

waiver,

or

Brooklyn Sav.

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

The first

exception is that the Secretary of Labor may supervise
the payment of back wages to 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 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
2

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

by

an

employer’s

overreaching.”).
In reviewing a settlement of an FLSA private claim,
a

court

fairness,”

must
id.

“scrutiniz[e]
at

1353,

and
3

the

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
actually

or
in

compromise

over

computation

of

dispute[,]

...

issues,
back

the

such

wages,

district

as
that

court

FLSA
are
[may]

approve the settlement in order to promote the policy
of encouraging settlement of litigation.”

Id. at 1354.

In this case, there is a bona fide dispute over
FLSA provisions, namely whether Chappell and Mastillo,
while

employed

“for

a

workweek

longer

than

forty

hours,” each received “compensation for his employment
in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not
less than one and one-half times the regular rate at
which he is employed.”

29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

In

particular, the parties dispute whether Chappell and
Mastillo were exempt from the overtime provisions of
the FLSA because they were employed in an “executive,

4

administrative, or professional capacity.”

29 U.S.C.

§ 213(a)(1).
After
reviewing

speaking
the

with

Chappell

settlement

and

agreement,

Mastillo

the

court

and
finds

that the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution
of

this

Mastillo

bona

knowingly

settlement.
Mastillo

fide

dispute
and

voluntarily

Chappell

will

and

will

receive

that

entered

and

into

the

$ 7,000.00

receive

$ 5,550.00

Chappell

and

from

Daeho,

which

represents a full recovery of overtime pay and an equal
amount of liquidated damages, and which they believe
reflects complete and total satisfaction of what they
could expect to receive if they were to prevail on
their FLSA claim at trial.

In addition, counsel for

Chappell and Mastillo, the Hays Law Firm, will receive
$

10,000.00

reimbursement
The

court

in

attorneys’

fees

of

costs,

a

finds

that

for

the

fee

and

total
is

of

$ 450.00

for

$ 10,450.00.

reasonable.

Upon

consideration of the representations of the parties,
5

the terms of the settlement agreement, 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 20th day of April, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE