Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00107/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00107-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:1938 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORNELIUS SMITH, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0107-WS-B

 )

WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER 

Plaintiff William Newton and the defendant have filed a joint motion for 

approval of settlement agreement. (Doc. 123). “When employees bring a private 

action for back 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). “[T]he rule of Lynn’s Food Stores applies to settlements 

between former employees and employers” just as it does to agreements by current 

employees. Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc., 723 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2013). 

The Court is unusually familiar with this case, as it has entered numerous 

rulings on the substantive motions presented by the parties, both in this case and in 

Pritchett v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-0182-WS-C. In light of 

this familiarity, the Court is unable to conclude that the settlement with Newton is 

fair and reasonable. Each of the plaintiffs here and in Pritchett appears to be in 

essentially the same position regarding the strengths and weaknesses of his or her 

case, yet the settlement with Newton leaves him far worse off than the other 

settling plaintiffs, for no reason the Court can discern or imagine.

David Foster, whose settlement the Court has approved by separate order, 

will receive under that settlement over 91% of the non-liquidated damages he 

Case 1:14-cv-00107-WS-B Document 128 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 2
2

would receive were he to prevail at trial on both the workweek and lunch break 

issues. (Doc. 122 at 4). Each of the twelve plaintiffs in Pritchett received 

approximately 106% of the non-liquidated damages they would have received had 

they prevailed at trial on these issues. (Pritchett, Doc. 127 at 4-6). Newton, in 

contrast, would receive under the proposed settlement only 22% of what he would 

be awarded under the same circumstances. While there is of course a range of 

reasonable outcomes in any case, the parties have not persuaded the Court that a 

settlement awarding Newton less than a quarter of what all other plaintiffs have 

received falls within that range.

For the reasons set forth above, the joint motion for approval of settlement 

agreement is denied.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00107-WS-B Document 128 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2