Harper v. Caroline's Country Store (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG2)
Filing
13
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/5/2017. (alm, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
XANATHE HARPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLINE’S COUNTRY STORE,
LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:17cv612-MHT
(WO)
OPINION
This cause is before the court on a joint motion to
approve an agreement settling plaintiff Xanathe Harper’s
claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. §§ 201-219, against defendant Caroline’s Country
Store, LLC.
The agreement further provides for the
dismissal
this
of
lawsuit.
Jurisdiction
is
proper
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (FLSA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(federal question).
Harper having personally testified
before the court and stated that she 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 in bargaining power between employers and
employees,
the
FLSA’s
provisions
are
mandatory
and,
except in two narrow circumstances, are generally not
subject
to
bargaining,
contract or settlement.”
waiver,
or
modification
by
Stalnaker v. Novar Corp., 293
F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1262 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (Thompson, J.)
(citing Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706
(1945)).
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 bona 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 issues, such as FLSA
coverage or computation of back wages, that are actually
2
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
FLSA
coverage
overtime hours worked by Harper.
and
the
amount
of
Harper’s receipt of
$ 6,400.00 for settling her FLSA claims provides her 100 %
of
her
($
$
unpaid
3,200.00)
3,200.00).
minimum
and
100
The
%
wage
in
and
overtime
liquidated
agreement
further
damages
provides
wages
(also
for
a
separate $ 4,600.00 in attorney’s fees and a $ 410.00
reimbursement of the court filing fee, to be paid to
counsel for Harper.
and
reviewing
the
After hearing from Harper personally
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 should review “the
3
reasonableness of counsel’s legal fees to assure both
that
counsel
conflict
of
is
compensated
interest
taints
adequately
the
amount
and
that
the
no
wronged
employee recovers under a settlement agreement.”
Silva
v. Miller, 307 F. App’x 349, 351 (11th Cir. 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.
However, because the attorney’s fee in
the settlement agreement does not come out of Harper’s
recovery, which provides the full amount of her unpaid
wages and liquidated damages, the court need not assess
the reasonableness of this fee.
The court notes that Harper has no non-FLSA claims.
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.”
4
Hogan
v. Allstate Beverage Co., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1274,
1284 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (Thompson, J.).
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 5th day of December, 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?