United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
ORDER DETERMINING GOOD FAITH AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT
JAMES
M. MOODY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The
plaintiff filed a Collective and Class Action Complaint (Doc.
1) in this action against the defendants on October 4, 2018,
alleging that defendants Van Tassel-Proctor, Inc.
(“VTP”) and Ted Van Tassel (“TVT”)
(collectively, “defendants”), violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 201 et. seq., and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-210, et seq.,
by failing to pay him, and other persons similarly situated,
overtime required by the FLSA and the AMWA. On December 4,
2018, the plaintiff withdrew his Motion for Conditional
Certification (Doc. 13). On December 4, 2018, the Court
entered an Order allowing with withdrawal of plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification (Doc. 16). On December
4, 2018, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement with
regard to all claims of the plaintiff (Doc. 14). On March 14,
2019, the plaintiff filed a Stipulation of Dismissal
dismissing all collective and class action claims in the case
so that only the individual claims of the individual
plaintiff are asserted in this action (Doc. 17). The gist of
the allegations in the action is that defendants failed to
compensate Jones for overtime. In their Answers to the
Complaint and the Amended Complaint, among other things, the
defendants assert that the plaintiff (or those alleged to be
similarly situated) is exempt from the overtime requirements
of the FLSA and the AMWA, deny they owe unpaid wages or
overtime compensation to the plaintiff (or any other
similarly situated persons), and deny that they have violated
the FLSA, the AMWA, or any other law, rule or regulation.
TVT, among other things, also denies he is an employer under
the FLSA or the AMWA. Defendants deny and will continued to
deny any violation of the applicable law or any liability to
the plaintiff (or any other similarly situated persons).
On
March 14, 2019, the plaintiff in the above-captioned action
(the “Litigation”) and the defendants by their
respective counsel of record, executed and filed with this
Court a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release
(“Settlement Agreement”) attached to
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Approve FLSA and AMWA
Settlement and Supporting Memorandum (Doc. 18).
This
Court has duly considered all of the submissions presented
with respect to the Settlement Agreement. The Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals has not directly addressed the factors to be
considered in deciding motions for approval of FLSA
settlements. However, other courts have examined such
settlements. “When employees bring a private action for
back pay wages under the FLSA, and present to the district
court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a
stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for
fairness.” Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United
States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982).
After Lynn's Food was decided, other courts to
examine this issue have divided the “fairness”
determination into two steps:
First, the court should consider whether the compromise is
fair and reasonable to the employee (factors
“internal” to the compromise). If the compromise
is reasonable to the employee, the court should inquire
whether the compromise impermissibly frustrates
implementation of the FLSA (factors “external” to
the compromise). The court should approve the compromise only
if the compromise is reasonable to the employee and furthers
implementation of the FLSA in the workplace.
Dees v. Hydradry, Inc. 706 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1240-41
(M.D. Fla. 2010); see also Anthony v. Concrete Supply
Co., Inc., No. 3:16-cv-70-TCB, 2017 WL 5639933 at *1
(N.D.Ga. August 23, 2017) (applying the Dees
approach). Courts in the Eastern District of Arkansas have
previously applied the Dees approach when analyzing
settlement agreements under the FLSA. See Wells v. Palco,
Inc., No. 4:16-cv00527-KGB (E.D. Ark. June 6, 2018);
Younger v. Centers for Youth and Families, Inc., No.
4:16-cv-00170-KGB, 2017 WL 1652561 (E.D. Ark. April 27,
2017); Cruthis v. Vision's, No.
4:12-cv-002244-KGB, 2014 WL 4092325 (E.D. Ark. August 19,
2014.) Having reviewed the Settlement Agreement, the Court
determines that the settlement both provides the plaintiff a
reasonable recovery and furthers the implementation of the
FLSA in the workplace. Therefore, the Court grants the
plaintiff's unopposed motion to approve FLSA and AMWA
settlement and supporting memorandum (Doc. 18).
All
capitalized defined terms in this Order Determining Good
Faith and Granting Approval of Settlement (“Approval
Order”) that are not otherwise defined have the same
meaning as in the Settlement Agreement.
NOW
THEREFORE, after due deliberation, this Court hereby ORDERS
that:
1. This
Approval Order will be binding on the plaintiff and
defendants.
2. The
Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable and adequate
compromise of a bona fide dispute, and is in the best
interests of the plaintiff.
3.
Within thirty (30) days after entry of this Approval Order,
payment of the Net Settlement Amount as defined in the
Settlement Agreement shall be made by or on behalf of the
defendants. Plaintiff's counsels' application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs in
the amounts set forth in the Settlement Agreement are hereby
approved and shall be paid from the Net Settlement Payment
and not in addition to the Net Settlement Amount.
4. The
Settlement Agreement is hereby approved in accordance with
Section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act and shall be
consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions
thereof.
5. This
Litigation is hereby dismissed in its entirety with
prejudice, and without costs to any party, except to the
extent otherwise expressly provided in the Settlement
Agreement. This Court intends this Approval Order to be
“Final” within the meaning of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
6.
Without affecting the finality of this Approval Order, this
Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the consummation,
performance, administration, effectuation and enforcement of
the Settlement Agreement and this Approval Order. In
addition, without affecting the finality of this Approval
Order, this Court retains jurisdiction over the parties for
the sole purpose of enabling any of them to apply to the
Court for such further orders and directions as may be
...