Cox v. Sunflower County Consolidated School District
ORDER that within fourteen (14) days of this order, parties shall file settlement agreement and if there is a bona find dispute as to wages claim, show cause why the proposed resolution is fair and reasonable re 25 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Sunflower County Consolidated School District. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 8/18/17. (tab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT
On August 16, 2017, an “Agreed Stipulation of Dismissal of Actions with Prejudice” was
filed in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. Doc. #25. Because the parties cannot stipulate to a
dismissal settling FLSA wages claims without the approval of the district court or the
Department of Labor, the stipulation is ineffective.
On September 21, 2016, John Cox filed a complaint in this Court against the Sunflower
County Consolidated School District, alleging a denial of overtime compensation and retaliatory
discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Doc. #1. On October 24, 2016, the
District filed an “Answer and Defenses” to the complaint and, on November 4, 2016, filed an
“Amended Answer and Defenses and Counterclaim.”1 Doc. #4; Doc. #6. Cox filed an answer to
the District’s counterclaim on November 17, 2016. Doc. #7.
On August 11, 2017, following a period of discovery, Cox filed an “Agreed Stipulation
of Dismissal of Actions with Prejudice.” Doc. #25. The document is signed by Cox’s counsel
The District asserts claims for “conversion and/or fraud” based on allegations that Cox illegally kept money
mistakenly deposited into his account by the District. Doc. #6 at ¶¶ 13–16.
and the District’s counsel, and specifies that it was filed “pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at 1.
The FLSA was enacted to “protect certain groups of the population from substandard
wages and excessive hours which endangered the national health and well-being and the free
flow of goods in interstate commerce.” Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945).
“In light of the FLSA’s recognition of unequal bargaining power between employers and
employees, the Supreme Court has concluded that the FLSA forbids waiver of the right to
statutory wages or to liquidated damages.” Bodle v. TXL Mortg. Corp., 788 F.3d 159, 162–63
(5th Cir. 2015) (citing O’Neil, 324 U.S. at 706–08). “Accordingly, many courts have held that,
in the absence of supervision by the Department of Labor or scrutiny from a court, a settlement
of an FLSA claim is prohibited.” Id. at 164–65 (internal citations omitted) (collecting cases).
However, “the weight of authority holds that FLSA retaliation claims do not require a supervised
settlement.” Frattallone v. Black Diamond Coating, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-2818, 2015 WL 476193,
at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2015) (collecting cases).
Although the cases cited above concern the issue of whether a private FLSA settlement is
enforceable, in considering FLSA’s underlying purpose, it has been held that “[Rule 41]
stipulated dismissals settling FLSA claims with prejudice [also] require the approval of the
district court or the DOL to take effect.” Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, 796 F.3d 199, 206
(2d Cir. 2015). As such, a Rule 41 stipulation on a FLSA wages claim is subject to the same
review as a FLSA settlement.
In reviewing FLSA settlements, courts, relying on the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in
Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982), generally
require that “the compromise reached [be] a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute
over FLSA provisions rather than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an
employer’s overreaching.” See, e.g., Kraus v. PA Fit II, LLC, 155 F.Supp.3d 516, 522–23 (E.D.
Pa. 2016) (collecting cases) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, in Martin v. Spring
Break ’83 Products, LLC, 688 F.3d 247 (5th Cir. 2012), the Fifth Circuit “excepted ... from this
general rule ... unsupervised settlements that are reached due to a bona fide FLSA dispute over
hours worked or compensation owed.” Bodle, 788 F.3d at 165.
“The primary difference between the Lynn’s Food and Martin standards is the timing of
the judicial scrutiny.” Kraus, 155 F.Supp.3d at 528. While Martin allows a court to enforce a
settlement after it has been executed, Lynn’s Food holds “that ex ante judicial scrutiny of a
private FLSA settlement is required.” Id. at 528–29. Notwithstanding this difference of timing,
“consistent with Lynn’s Food, [Martin], in essence, scrutinized the terms of the agreement at
issue to ensure that they were fair and did not undermine the goals of the FLSA.” Id. at 528.
Here, the parties, representing that they “have been able to obtain a resolution to this
matter that will enable them to not pursue this litigation,” purport to “stipulate to the dismissal of
their respective claims” with “[e]ach party [to] bear his/her/its own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Doc. #25 at 2. However, the parties have not submitted a copy of their settlement agreement or
otherwise advised the Court of the terms of the resolution reached. In the absence of such, the
Court is unable to determine whether there is a bona fide dispute or that the resolution reached
reflects a fair and reasonable settlement of such a dispute.
The stipulation, therefore, is
ineffective as to Cox’s claims for unpaid wages under the FLSA. Furthermore, to the extent the
stipulation contemplated the dismissal of all claims, as a matter of fairness, the Court deems it
ineffective as to Cox’s retaliation claim and the District’s counterclaims. See generally Alellyv
Mines Ltd. v. Pelletier, 90 F.R.D. 626, 627 (E.D. Tenn. 1981) (“[T]he Court may refuse to
dismiss upon the limited terms and conditions named by the plaintiff.”) (internal alterations
Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of this order, the parties shall (1) file a copy of the
settlement agreement; and (2) if there is a bona fide dispute as to the wages claim, show cause
why the proposed resolution is fair and reasonable.
SO ORDERED, this 18th day of August, 2017.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?