Rodriguez et al v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, et al.

Filing 37

ORDER APPROVING FLSA Settlement, DISMISSING case WITH PREJUDICE, and CLOSING Case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 2/15/2012. (dkc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
Case No. 11-22757-CIV-GOODMAN
[CONSENT CASE]
CRISTINA RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY
WAREHOUSE CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
ORDER APPROVING FLSA SETTLEMENT
This matter is before the Court following a fairness hearing on February 15, 2012, during
which the Court heard from counsel regarding the fairness of the settlement of the plaintiffs’
claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for failure to pay overtime.
In general, the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA are mandatory and
not subject to negotiation or bargaining between employers and employees.

See Brooklyn

Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945). However, there are two ways employees may
settle and waive a claim against their employer for unpaid minimum wages or overtime pay
under the FLSA: (1) if the payment of unpaid minimum wage/overtime pay is supervised by the
Secretary of Labor or (2) in a private lawsuit brought by an employee, if the parties present the
district court with a proposed settlement and the court enters an order approving the fairness of
the settlement. 29 U.S.C. § 216(c); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S., 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th
Cir. 1982); see also Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108 (1946).
An employee may settle and release FLSA claims against his employer without the

[CONSENT CASE]
supervision of the Secretary of Labor if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the settlement
occurs in an adversarial context; (2) there are issues of FLSA coverage and/or computations
actually in dispute; and (3) the district court enters an order approving the settlement after
scrutinizing the fairness of the settlement. Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354.
The Court reviewed the terms of the settlement during the hearing and heard argument
from the parties’ counsel on the above subjects. In addition, the Court questioned counsel about
the specifics of the settlement, including the breakdown of fees and costs. The Court considered
the factors outlined in Lynn’s Food Stores, including the strength of the parties’ cases, the
anticipated costs of a trial, the factual positions of the parties, the existence (or lack thereof) of
documents supporting or corroborating the parties’ positions, and the parties’ desire to resolve
the dispute sooner, rather than later.
The Court finds that the settlement here represents a genuine compromise of a bona fide
dispute. The plaintiffs have accepted less money than they claim is owed (given their liquidated
damages claim) while the defendants, who have denied liability, have agreed to pay plaintiffs
more than they believe is due under the law. All parties have agreed to settle as a result of
reasonable strategic and financial considerations.
Therefore, the Court finds that the settlement here occurred in an adversarial context and
that there are genuine coverage and computation issues in dispute. The Court further finds that
the settlement reached by the parties represents a reasonable compromise by both sides and is
fair and reasonable. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the parties’ settlement agreement is fair and
reasonable, the settlement is APPROVED, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

2

[CONSENT CASE]
and this case is CLOSED. The Court reserves jurisdiction for ninety (90) days to enforce the
terms of the parties’ settlement.
DONE and ORDERED, in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, this 15th day of February,
2012.

Copies furnished to:
All counsel of record

3