Gibson v. Harsco Corporation

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 10/8/15. (SMH)

FILED
2015 Oct-08 AM 09:29
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RUFUS GIBSON; JOHNNY EFFINGER,
JR.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HARSCO CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-0166-SLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The case is presently pending before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement. (Doc. 24.) For the reasons set forth below, the court find the parties’ Joint Motion is
due to be granted and this matter is due to be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiffs allege defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] by failing to pay
them overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. Specifically, they
allege:
17. P laintiffs performed work for the benefit of Defendant before the
beginning of their shift[,] performing mandatory job functions in order to be ready by
shift start time[,] for which they were not paid . . . .
18. Plaintiffs performed work for the benefit of Defendant after the end of
their scheduled work shift[,] wrapping up their job duties[,] for which they were not
paid . . . .
19. Defendant paid Plaintiffs for their scheduled hours as opposed to hours
actually worked.

(Doc. 15 ¶¶ 17-19.)
The court notes:
[T]he FLSA’s provisions are mandatory and, except in two narrow circumstances,
are generally not subject to bargaining, waiver, or modification by contract or
settlement. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706, 65 S. Ct. 895,
902, 89 L. Ed. 1296 (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).
The second route to settlement, and the one that is applicable here, occurs
when 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 (“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 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 submit a settlement to the court for approval,
the settlement is more likely to reflect a 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 must “scrutiniz[e]
the settlement for fairness,” id. at 1353, and determine that 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 compromise over
issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages, that are actually in
dispute[,] . . . the district court [may] approve the settlement in order to promote the
policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Id. at 1354.
Stalnaker v. Novar Corp., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1262-63 (M.D. Ala. 2003).

2

According to terms of the parties’ Joint Motion, plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid overtime wages
were not compromised by the settlement as plaintiffs have been paid their “full back pay and full
liquidated damages.” (Doc. 24 ¶¶ 2-4.) The amount of attorneys’ fees “did not go to lessen the
amount received by the Plaintiffs.

(Id. ¶ 5.) The Settlement Agreement contains a release of

plaintiffs’ FLSA claims against defendant that were “asserted or that could or should have been
asserted in [this] Action.” (Doc. 24-1 at 3-4.)
The court finds that plaintiffs’ claims represent a bona fide dispute, namely the amount of their
unpaid overtime wages, if any. Based on the parties’ representations, the court finds that the parties’
settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of these bona fide disputes.
An Order granting the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement, (doc. 24), and
dismissing this case will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.
DONE this 8th day of October, 2015.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3