Carter v. Zaxby's River Region Payroll, LLC

Filing 15

OPINION as further set out in the order. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/19/2023. (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
TIFFANY CARTER,
as mother and next friend
of T.C., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZAXBY’S RIVER REGION
PAYROLL, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:23cv225-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
This

case

concerns

claims

brought

by

plaintiff

Tiffany Carter, as mother and next friend of T.C., her
minor daughter, against T.C.’s former employer, defendant
Zaxby’s River Region Payroll, LLC.

In her complaint in

this court, Carter charges Zaxby’s with both sex-based
discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, codified at
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and with sex-based pay
discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963,
codified at 29 U.S.C. § 206.

The court has jurisdiction

based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343(a)(4) (civil rights), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (Equal
Pay Act), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) (Title VII).
Following mediation supervised by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, the parties reached a settlement
agreement

and

submitted

it

to

the

court

for

its

consideration and approval.
The court conducted a telephonic conference on May
10, 2023, regarding the parties’ joint petition for pro
ami hearing and settlement approval.

The court has

received under seal a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement
parties.

and

release

submitted

and

signed

by

the

The parties have agreed that the terms of the

settlement agreement are to remain confidential.
Although the parties have advised the court that they
have reached a fair settlement, the court assigns no
weight to the same.

Instead, the court has made an

independent and disinterested evaluation of the issues
and evidence, with a view toward determining whether the
proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and whether

2

it is in the best interest of the minor child to approve
such settlement of her claims.
The first issue for the court is whether to appoint
a guardian ad litem for T.C.

The court agrees with the

parties that, in the Eleventh Circuit, there is no need
to appoint a guardian ad litem when, as here, a minor is
represented by a parent and there is no conflict of
interest.

See Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th

Cir. 2001).
The next issue for the court is whether to hold an
evidentiary hearing.

The parties agree that no hearing

is necessary and have, instead, submitted to the court
signed affidavits from Carter and from T.C., who is 17
years old and thus old enough to be heard by the court.
Both affidavits strongly support approval of the proposed
settlement agreement.

The court agrees with the parties

that a hearing is unnecessary and that these affidavits
are sufficient for the court do determine whether the
proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as to T.C.

3

Having

spoken

with

the

parties

at

the

May

10

conference and reviewed the submitted affidavits--and
with

the

terms

of

the

proposed

settlement

agreement

reflecting adequately the nature of the claims alleged,
the duration of T.C.’s employment, and the legal rights
to be released--the court finds that the terms of such
agreement

are

interests.

fair,
Also

reasonable,

such

and

agreement

in

T.C.’s

provides

for

best
the

distribution of attorneys’ fees, the amount of which the
court

has

independently

reviewed

reasonable and appropriate.

and

finds

to

be

In determining whether a

settlement is fair to a minor, the court must determine
whether the requested attorney's fee, if it comes out of
the settlement or was part of the negotiations for the
amount the minor is to receive, is appropriate.

See S.P.

v. Spinks, No. 20cv995-MHT, 2022 WL 158660, at *3 (M.D.
Ala.

2022).

Accordingly,

the

court

finds

that

the

proposed settlement agreement should be approved, albeit
subject to the following modification.

4

There is a typographical infelicity in the proposed
settlement

agreement:

transmission

of

“[p]ayment ...

it

three

expressly

checks

but

requires
refers

Zaxby’s
only

to

made in the form of two (2) checks.”

Agreement (Doc. 13-3) at 5 (emphasis omitted).

The court

approves

that

the

settlement

agreement

provided

the

quoted language above shall instead be understood to
require “[p]ayment ... made in the form of three (3)
checks”

to

agree

with

the

three

discrete

payments

enumerated in the agreement itself.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 19th day of May, 2023.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5