Wall v. Virginia University of Lynchburg, Inc. et al

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on March 27, 2015. (sfc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
LYNCHBURG DIVISION

DARNELL WALL,

CIVIL NO. 6:14cv00031
Plaintiff,
v.

Memorandum Opinion

VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY OF LYNCHBURG, INC.,
RALPH REAVIS,

JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

Defendants.
The parties represent that they have recently entered into a proposed settlement
agreement with respect to Plaintiff’s claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (hereinafter, “FLSA”). This matter is now before me on the parties’ Joint
Motion for Settlement Approval. For the following reasons, I will grant their motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this action, in which he alleges that Defendants
Virginia University of Lynchburg (“VUL”) and Dr. Ralph Reavis (“Dr. Reavis”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) failed to pay him his full salary as well as significant overtime wages in violation
of the FLSA. Subsequently, on March 3, 2015, the parties reached a written agreement settling
all of Plaintiff’s FLSA claims. The agreement was negotiated with the assistance of Magistrate
Judge Robert S. Ballou, and both parties represent that the settlement is fair.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under the FLSA, there is a judicial prohibition against the unsupervised settlement of
claims. D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 113 n.8 (1946). Accordingly, I am required to
determine that the proposed settlement “is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute

over FLSA provisions.” Poulin v. Gen. Dynamics Shares Res., Inc., No. 3:09-cv-00058, 2010
WL 1813497, at *1 (W.D. Va. May 5, 2010) (citation omitted). In making this determination, I
must consider: “(1) the extent of discovery that has taken place; (2) the stage of the proceedings,
including the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the absence of fraud
or collusion in the settlement; (4) the experience of counsel who have represented the plaintiffs;”
and finally, (5) “the probability of plaintiff’s success on the merits and the amount of the
settlement in relation to the potential recovery.” Id. (citing Lomascolo v. Parsons Brinckerhoff,
Inc., No. 1:08-cv-1310, 2009 WL 2094955, at *10 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2009)).
III. DISCUSSION
The parties have jointly filed a memorandum in support of their Motion for Settlement
Approval, which exhaustively addresses the factors identified in Poulin. In considering those
factors, I am most persuaded by the fact that Magistrate Judge Ballou oversaw and assisted the
parties in negotiating their settlement. Given this, it is quite clear that the parties did not engage
in “fraud or collusion” in reaching their agreement. Moreover, Plaintiff has received a fair
settlement in relation to his potential recovery.

In his original complaint, Plaintiff sought

damages in the amount of $17,184.12. This amount consisted of $8,592.06 in unpaid minimum
wage and overtime damages, as well as an equivalent amount in liquidated damages. Pursuant to
the parties’ settlement agreement, Plaintiff will receive $12,500. This represents the full amount
of minimum wage and overtime damages and nearly half of the liquidated damages Plaintiff
originally sought in his complaint.

Had Plaintiff proceeded with this litigation, he risked

recovering substantially less. 1 Accordingly, I find that the parties’ settlement agreement “is a
fair and reasonable resolution” of Plaintiff’s claims arising under the FLSA. Id.

1

In opposing Plaintiff’s claims under the FLSA, Defendants took the position that Plaintiff was

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I will grant the parties’ Motion for Settlement Approval
(docket no. 51). An appropriate order follows.
27th
ENTER: This _____ day of March, 2015.

an “exempt” worker under 29 C.F.R. § 541.303. They therefore argued that “the most [P]laintiff
would be entitled to would be contractual damages, not damages under the FLSA.” Had
Defendants been successful in asserting this position, Plaintiff would have recovered only
$4,789.03, which is $7,710.97 less than what he is set to receive under the parties’ agreement.