Smith et al v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.

Filing 128

ORDER denying 123 Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement filed by William Newton & Werner Enterprises. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 7/27/2015. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CORNELIUS SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 14-0107-WS-B
)
)
)
)
ORDER

Plaintiff William Newton and the defendant have filed a joint motion for
approval of settlement agreement. (Doc. 123). “When employees bring a private
action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court a proposed
settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the
settlement for fairness.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350,
1353 (11th Cir. 1982). “[T]he rule of Lynn’s Food Stores applies to settlements
between former employees and employers” just as it does to agreements by current
employees. Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc., 723 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2013).
The Court is unusually familiar with this case, as it has entered numerous
rulings on the substantive motions presented by the parties, both in this case and in
Pritchett v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-0182-WS-C. In light of
this familiarity, the Court is unable to conclude that the settlement with Newton is
fair and reasonable. Each of the plaintiffs here and in Pritchett appears to be in
essentially the same position regarding the strengths and weaknesses of his or her
case, yet the settlement with Newton leaves him far worse off than the other
settling plaintiffs, for no reason the Court can discern or imagine.
David Foster, whose settlement the Court has approved by separate order,
will receive under that settlement over 91% of the non-liquidated damages he

would receive were he to prevail at trial on both the workweek and lunch break
issues. (Doc. 122 at 4). Each of the twelve plaintiffs in Pritchett received
approximately 106% of the non-liquidated damages they would have received had
they prevailed at trial on these issues. (Pritchett, Doc. 127 at 4-6). Newton, in
contrast, would receive under the proposed settlement only 22% of what he would
be awarded under the same circumstances. While there is of course a range of
reasonable outcomes in any case, the parties have not persuaded the Court that a
settlement awarding Newton less than a quarter of what all other plaintiffs have
received falls within that range.
For the reasons set forth above, the joint motion for approval of settlement
agreement is denied.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2015.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2