Chappell et al v. Daeho Logistics Industry Co., Ltd. Corp. (JOINT ASSIGN) (MAG2)
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
DAEHO LOGISTICS INDUSTRY
CO., LTD. CORP.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
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
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
employers and employees, the statute’s provisions are
mandatory and, except in two narrow circumstances, are
modification by contract or settlement.
Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945).
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,
The second route to settlement, and the one that is
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
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.
Thus, when the parties
compromise of disputed issues than a mere waiver of
In reviewing a settlement of an FLSA private claim,
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
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,
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).
particular, the parties dispute whether Chappell and
Mastillo were exempt from the overtime provisions of
the FLSA because they were employed in an “executive,
administrative, or professional capacity.”
that the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution
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
consideration of the representations of the parties,
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
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?