Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_15-cv-00166/USCOURTS-alnd-2_15-cv-00166-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUFUS GIBSON; JOHNNY EFFINGER,

JR.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HARSCO CORPORATION,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-0166-SLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The case is presently pending before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of

Settlement. (Doc. 24.) For the reasons set forth below, the court find the parties’ Joint Motion is

due to be granted and this matter is due to be dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiffs allege defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] by failing to pay

them overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. Specifically, they

allege:

17. Plaintiffs performed work for the benefit of Defendant before the

beginning of their shift[,] performing mandatory job functions in order to be ready by

shift start time[,] for which they were not paid . . . .

18. Plaintiffs performed work for the benefit of Defendant after the end of

their scheduled work shift[,] wrapping up their job duties[,] for which they were not

paid . . . .

19. Defendant paid Plaintiffs for their scheduled hours as opposed to hours

actually worked.

FILED

 2015 Oct-08 AM 09:29

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:15-cv-00166-SLB Document 25 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 3
(Doc. 15 ¶¶ 17-19.)

The court notes:

[T]he FLSA’s provisions are mandatory and, except in two narrow circumstances,

are generally not subject to bargaining, waiver, or modification by contract or

settlement. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706, 65 S. Ct. 895,

902, 89 L. Ed. 1296 (1945). The first exception is that the Secretary of Labor may

supervise the payment of back wages to employees; employees who accept such

payments waive their rights to bring suits for liquidated damages, provided the

employer pays the back amount in full. 29 U.S.C. § 216(c); Lynn’s Food Stores,

Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1982).

The second route to settlement, and the one that is applicable here, occurs

when an employee brings a private action for back wages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

the employee and employer present a proposed settlement to the district court, and

the district court reviews the judgment and enters it as a stipulated judgment. Lynn’s

Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354 (“Settlements may be permissible in the context of

a suit brought by employees under the FLSA for back wages because initiation of the

action by employees provides some assurance of an adversarial context. The

employees are likely to be represented by an attorney who can protect their rights

under the statute. Thus,when the parties submit a settlement to the court for approval,

the settlement is more likely to reflect a reasonable compromise of disputed issues

than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer’s

overreaching.”).

In reviewing a settlement of an FLSA private claim, a court must “scrutiniz[e]

the settlement for fairness,” id. at 1353, and determine that the settlement is a “fair

and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions,” id. at 1355.

“If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable compromise over

issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages, that are actually in

dispute[,] . . . the district court [may] approve the settlement in order to promote the

policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Id. at 1354.

Stalnaker v. Novar Corp., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1262-63 (M.D. Ala. 2003).

2

Case 2:15-cv-00166-SLB Document 25 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 3
According to terms of the parties’ Joint Motion, plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid overtime wages

were not compromised by the settlement as plaintiffs have been paid their “full back pay and full

liquidated damages.” (Doc. 24 ¶¶ 2-4.) The amount of attorneys’ fees “did not go to lessen the

amount received by the Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 5.) The Settlement Agreement contains a release of

plaintiffs’ FLSA claims against defendant that were “asserted or that could or should have been

asserted in [this] Action.” (Doc. 24-1 at 3-4.)

The court finds that plaintiffs’ claims represent a bona fide dispute, namely the amount of their

unpaid overtime wages, if any. Based on the parties’ representations, the court finds that the parties’

settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of these bona fide disputes.

An Order granting the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement, (doc. 24), and

dismissing this case will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.

DONE this 8th day of October, 2015.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3

Case 2:15-cv-00166-SLB Document 25 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 3