McCartney v. Bailey & Thompson Tax and Accounting PA LTD et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDIOCE granting 10 Motion to Dismiss. This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 2/19/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
KELLIE MCCARTNEY
Plaintiff
V.
BAILEY & THOMPSON TAX AND
ACCOUNTING, P.A. LTD and A.W.
BAILEY
Defendants

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

NO: 4:14CV00561 SWW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Kellie McCartney brings this action against her former employers, Bailey &
Thompson Tax and Accounting, P.A. LTD and A.W. Bailey, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. In her complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants paid her on an hourly basis, she worked in excess of forty hours
per week, and Defendants failed to pay her overtime. The parties report that they have settled
Plaintiff’s claims, and they seek court approval of their agreement or, alternatively, an order
finding such approval unnecessary and dismissing this action with prejudice. After careful
consideration, and for reasons that follow, the Court finds that court approval of the parties’
settlement agreement is not necessary and that this action should be dismissed with prejudice.
The Court finds no statutory mandate or Eighth Circuit decision that requires court
approval of the parties’ private settlement agreement. See Fascio v. Madison Health & Rehab
LLC, No. 4:12CV00600 (E.D. Ark. June 30, 2014)(order finding arms’ length compromise of
FLSA claims for overtime did not require court approval). Although rights under the FLSA
cannot be waived by settlement, the dispute in this case, which the parties have settled, is the

number of hours that Plaintiff worked per week. The parties do not dispute that Defendants are
required by law to pay overtime, nor do they dispute the statutorily-prescribed pay rate for
overtime. Further, Plaintiff initiated this action through counsel, and the parties report that their
settlement is the product of arms’ length negotiations through counsel. In sum, the settlement
agreement in this case amounts to a compromise of disputed factual issues, not a waiver of
statutory rights.
As an alternative to court approval of the settlement agreement, the parties request that
the Court dismiss this case with prejudice, by order affirmatively stating that court approval is
not required and that the parties’ agreement shall have a res judicata effect on any subsequent
claim for damages. The Court has stated its determination that court approval of the parties’
settlement agreement is not necessary, and any dismissal with prejudice is subject to the usual
rules of res judicata.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is
GRANTED. This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015.

/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2