Poullos v. Vince & Joe's Fruit Market - Shelby, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER Granting Motion to Approve Settlement, DISMISSING CASE, and Striking Improper Filing. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SSch)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHRISTIAN M. POULLOS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case Number 16-11990
Honorable David M. Lawson

VINCE & JOE’S FRUIT MARKET —
SHELBY, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT,
DISMISSING CASE, AND STRIKING IMPROPER FILING
This matter is before the Court on a joint motion by the parties to approve the terms of their
settlement agreement. The plaintiff brought suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that
the defendant failed to pay him an overtime premium wage required by law, because the defendant
misclassified him as a supervisory employee. An employee’s rights to a minimum wage and
overtime premium wages under the FLSA are mandatory and are not subject to bargaining, waiver,
or modification by contract or settlement. Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945).
An exception to that general rule exists when a bona fide dispute arises between the employee and
employer, and that dispute is settled under court supervision. Crawford v. Lexington-Fayette Urban
Cty. Gov’t, No. 06-299, 2008 WL 4724499, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 23, 2008) (citing Lynn’s Food
Stores v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982)). The Court’s obligation in reviewing
settlements of FLSA claims is to “‘ensure that the parties are not, via settlement of [the] claims,
negotiating around the clear FLSA requirements of compensation for all hours worked, minimum
wages, maximum hours, and overtime.’” Rotuna v. W. Customer Mgmt. Group LLC, No. 09-1608,

2010 WL 2490989, at *5 (N.D. Ohio June 15, 2010) (quoting Collins v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 568
F. Supp. 2d 714, 719 (E.D. La. 2000)).
The Court held a hearing on December 28, 2016, and during that hearing the parties put the
terms of their proposed settlement on the record.

The settlement agreement contained a

confidentiality provision that prevents the plaintiff from telling others about the results of this case.
As a general matter, it is thought that “‘[a] confidentiality provision in an FLSA settlement
agreement both contravenes the legislative purpose of the FLSA and undermines the Department of
Labor’s regulatory effort to notify employees of their FLSA rights.’” Steele v. Staffmark Investments,
LLC, 172 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1031 (W.D. Tenn. 2016) (quoting Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp.
2d 1227, 1242 (M.D. Fla. 2010)). However, because the terms of the settlement were placed on the
record in open court, that general concern is mitigated here. The settlement appears to have made
the plaintiff nearly whole with respect to the unpaid overtime wages, and it included an attorney’s
fee in a reasonable amount. The parties each asked the Court to approve the agreement, and it does
not appear that there is any danger of collusion for the purpose of skirting the requirements of the
FLSA. At the end of the hearing, the Court found that the settlement was fair, adequate, and
reasonable and announced from the bench its decision to grant the joint motion to approve the
settlement.
The joint motion also included as an exhibit a proposed order granting the motion. It is
inappropriate for any party to file a proposed or stipulated order on the docket. “Proposed orders
must be submitted to the judge to whom the case is assigned . . . via the link located under the
Utilities section of CM/ECF.” E.D. Mich. Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures R11(a). If a
proposed order is accepted, the Court will then docket it with the Judge’s electronic signature.
-2-

“Proposed” orders should never be e-filed and docketed by a party. The Court therefore will strike
the improperly filed proposed order.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the record, it is ORDERED that the joint motion of
the parties to approve the settlement agreement [dkt. #17] is GRANTED, and the settlement is
APPROVED.
It is further ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without
costs to any party. Either party may apply to reopen the case to enforce the settlement agreement on
or before January 29, 2017.
It is further ORDERED that Exhibit A of the joint motion [ECF Doc. No. 17-1] is
STRICKEN.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: December 29, 2016

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on December 29, 2016.
s/Susan Pinkowski
SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-3-