Moncrief v. Inline Electric Supply Company, Inc.
Filing
26
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/21/2017. (alm, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM MONCRIEF,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
INLINE ELECTRIC SUPPLY
CO., INC.,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:17cv167-MHT
(WO)
OPINION
This cause is before the court on a joint motion to
approve
an
Moncrief’s
agreement
claim
under
settling
the
Fair
plaintiff
Labor
William
Standards
Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, against defendant Inline
Electric
Supply
Co.,
Inc.
Jurisdiction
is
proper
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (FLSA) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 (federal question).
Moncrief having personally
testified before and court and stated that he approves
of the settlement, and for the following reasons, the
court will approve the settlement agreement.
“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
subject
to
bargaining,
waiver,
modification by contract or settlement.”
or
Stalnaker v.
Novar Corp., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1262 (M.D. Ala.
2003)
(Thompson,
J.)
(citing
Brooklyn
O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945)).
Sav.
Bank
v.
The first exception
requires supervision by the Secretary of Labor under 29
U.S.C.
§
216(c);
the
second
exception
allows
for
settlement of claims for back wages under 29 U.S.C.
§ 216(b), if a court “scrutiniz[es] the settlement for
fairness,”
and
determines
that
it
is
a
“fair
and
reasonable resolution of a bonda fide dispute over FLSA
provisions.”
Lynn's
Food
Stores,
Inc.
v.
United
States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982).
“If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit does reflect
a
reasonable
compromise
over
2
issues,
such
as
FLSA
coverage
actually
or
computation
in
dispute[,]
of
...
back
the
wages,
district
that
court
are
[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 FLSA coverage and the amount of
overtime hours worked by Moncrief.
Moncrief’s receipt
of $ 22,108.00 for settling his FLSA claim provides him
80 % of his claimed overtime wages ($ 11,054.00) and 80 %
in
liquidated
compromise
rather
to
than
damages
apply
the
a
(also
$
two-year
three-year
11,054.00),
statute
period
of
that
after
his
limitations
applies
for
willful FLSA violations.
After hearing from Moncrief
personally
reviewing
and
after
the
settlement
agreement, the court concludes that the settlement is a
fair
and
reasonable
resolution
of
these
bona
fide
disputes.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has further
counseled (albeit in an unpublished and therefore nonbinding opinion) that, in the contingency-fee context,
a court reviewing an FLSA settlement must review “the
3
reasonableness of counsel’s legal fees to assure both
that
counsel
conflict
of
is
compensated
interest
taints
adequately
the
and
amount
that
the
no
wronged
employee recovers under a settlement agreement.”
Silva
v. Miller, 307 Fed. Appx. 349, 351 (11th Cir. Jan. 13,
2009).
According to Silva, “[t]o turn a blind eye to
an agreed upon contingency fee in an amount greater
than
the
amount
determined
to
be
reasonable
after
judicial scrutiny runs counter to FLSA's provisions for
compensating the wronged employee.”
Id.
Reasonableness
is determined by applying the 12 factors enumerated in
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714,
717–19
(5th
Cir.
1974):
“(1)
the
time
and
labor
required; (2) the difficulty of the issues; (3) the
skill required; (4) the preclusion of other employment
by the attorney because he accepted the case; (5) the
customary fee in the community; (6) whether the fee is
fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by
the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved
and
the
results
obtained;
4
(9)
the
experience,
reputation,
and
ability
of
the
attorneys;
(10)
the
undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length
of the professional relationship with the client; and
(12) awards in similar cases.”
Faught v. Am. Home
Shield Corp., 668 F.3d 1233, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2011)
(citations omitted).
The
settlement
agreement
provides
that
Moncrief
will receive $ 22,108.00 for settling his FLSA claims,
$ 9,428.85 of which is to be allocated to attorney’s
fees.
This fee amounts to 42.6 % of the recovery for
Moncrief’s FLSA claims.
hearing
on
explained
November
that
this
At an on-the-record fairness
17,
2017,
42.6
%
counsel
fee
for
represents
Moncrief
a
lower
amount than the original 45 % that Moncrief agreed to
when
retaining
explained
that
fact-gathering,
discovery,
counsel.
his
efforts
drafting
defending
engaging in mediation.
Moncrief’s
the
Moncrief
in
counsel
this
complaint,
in
a
case
further
include
engaging
deposition,
in
and
He calculated that the hourly
rate charged to Moncrief based on the above contingency
5
fee amounts to $ 340.00.
Counsel for both parties
confirmed that 42.6 % is in the low- to mid-range of
contingency
Middle
fees
District
charged
of
for
Alabama;
a
FLSA
defense
action
counsel
in
the
further
stated that the $ 340.00 rate did not exceed rates he
has been awarded in this district on similar cases.
In
light of the parties’ representations, and considering
the
Johnson
attorney’s
factors,
fee
awarded
the
court
in
the
finds
parties’
that
the
settlement
agreement is fair and reasonable.
The court notes that the parties have separately
settled Moncrief’s breach-of-contract claims, and that
there
was
fair
those claims.
consideration
for
the
settlement
of
There is therefore no evidence of unfair
and improper “use [of] 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
v.
Allstate
Beverage
Co.,
Inc.,
821
F.Supp.2d 1274, 1284 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (Thompson, J.).
6
An appropriate judgment granting the parties’ joint
motion
to
approve
settlement
of
the
FLSA
claim
and
dismissing this case in full will be entered.
DONE, this the 21st day of November, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
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?