Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-01018/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-01018-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS BRIAN JORDAN ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HELIX SYSTEMS, INC. ,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 2:14-CV-01018-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Thomas Brian Jordan worked for defendant Helix Systems, Inc. in 

the field of information technology. Mr. Jordan filed this lawsuit on May 30, 

2014, claiming that Helix failed to pay him overtime in violation of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. The parties have agreed to settle Mr. 

Jordan’s FLSA claims, and they have asked the Court to review the terms of the 

proposed settlement. The Court approves the settlement because it is a fair and 

reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Mr. Jordan alleges that Helix violated the FLSA by failing to pay him 

overtime. (Doc. 1). Mr. Jordan claims that Helix did not pay him an overtime 

FILED

 2014 Oct-03 PM 04:33

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:14-cv-01018-MHH Document 15 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 8
2

premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours while he worked in the position of

I.T. Support. (Doc. 1, ¶ 9). Additionally, Mr. Jordan asserts that while he worked

as I.T. Manager, Helix misclassified him under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(17), a provision 

of the FLSA that exempts certain computer employees from the overtime 

provisions of the FLSA. (Doc. 1, ¶ 46). 

Helix filed its answer to Mr. Jordan’s complaint on July 16, 2014. (Doc. 8). 

In its answer, Helix denied Mr. Jordan’s claims and asserted that it properly 

classified Mr. Jordan as an exempt employee under § 213(a)(17). (Doc. 8). 

After engaging in settlement discussions and negotiations, the parties filed a 

joint motion for court approval of their proposed FLSA settlement. (Doc. 11). The 

settlement provides that Helix will pay Mr. Jordan $20,358.00. (Doc. 11-1, ¶ 2). 

That amount consists of $7,250, minus tax withholdings, for claimed and disputed 

unpaid overtime wages; $7,250 for claimed and disputed liquidated damages; and 

$5,858 for claimed attorney’s fees and costs. (Doc. 11-1, ¶ 2). 

II. Discussion

A. The Fair Labor Standards Act

“Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938 with the goal of ‘protect[ing] all 

covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours.’ Among 

other requirements, the FLSA obligates employers to compensate employees for 

hours in excess of 40 per week at a rate of 1 1⁄2 times the employees’ regular 

Case 2:14-cv-01018-MHH Document 15 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 8
3

wages.” Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156, 2162 (2012) 

(quoting Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 739 (1981)); 

see also 29 U.S.C. §§ 202, 207(a). Congress designed the FLSA “to ensure that 

each employee covered by the Act would receive ‘[a] fair day’s pay for a fair day’s 

work’ and would be protected from ‘the evil of ‘overwork’ as well as ‘underpay.’” 

Barrentine, 450 U.S. at 739 (emphasis in original). In doing so, Congress sought 

to protect “the public’s independent interest in assuring that employees’ wages are 

fair and thus do not endanger ‘the national health and well-being.’” Stalnaker v. 

Novar Corp., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1264 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (quoting Brooklyn Sav. 

Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945)). 

If an employee proves that his employer violated the FLSA, then the 

employer must remit to the employee all unpaid wages or compensation, liquidated 

damages in an amount equal to the unpaid wages, a reasonable attorney’s fee, and 

costs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). “FLSA provisions are mandatory; the ‘provisions are 

not subject to negotiation or bargaining between employer and employee.’” Silva 

v. Miller, 307 Fed. Appx. 349, 351 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lynn’s Food Stores, 

Inc. v. U.S. ex. Rel. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982)); 

see also Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 707 (1945). “Any amount 

due that is not in dispute must be paid unequivocally; employers may not extract 

valuable concessions in return for payment that is indisputedly owed under the 

Case 2:14-cv-01018-MHH Document 15 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 8
4

FLSA.” Hogan v. Allstate Beverage Co., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1282 (M.D. 

Ala. 2011). 

Consequently, parties may settle an FLSA claim for unpaid wages only if 

there is a bona fide dispute relating to a material issue concerning the claim. To 

compromise a claim for unpaid wages, the parties must “present to the district 

court a proposed settlement, [and] the district court may enter a stipulated 

judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Lynn’s Food, 679 F.2d at 

1353; see also Hogan, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 1281–82.1

 “[T]he parties requesting 

review of an FLSA compromise must provide enough information for the court to 

examine the bona fides of the dispute.” Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 

1227, 1241 (M.D. Fla. 2010). The information that the parties provide should also 

enable the Court “to ensure that employees have received all uncontested wages 

 1 In Lynn’s Food, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals explained, “[t]here are only two ways in 

which back wage claims arising under the FLSA can be settled or compromised by employees. 

First, under section 216(c), the Secretary of Labor is authorized to supervise payment to 

employees of unpaid wages owed to them. An employee who accepts such a payment 

supervised by the Secretary thereby waives his right to bring suit for both the unpaid wages and 

for liquidated damages, provided the employer pays in full the back wages. The only other route 

for compromise of FLSA claims is provided in the context of suits brought directly by 

employees against their employer under section 216(b) to recover back wages for FLSA 

violations. 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.” 679 F.2d at 1352-53 (footnotes omitted). The Eleventh 

Circuit reiterated the import of Lynn’s Food in Nall v. Mal–Motels, Inc., 723 F.3d 1304 (11th 

Cir. 2013).

Case 2:14-cv-01018-MHH Document 15 Filed 10/03/14 Page 4 of 8
5

due and that they have received a fair deal regarding any additional amount that 

remains in controversy.” Hogan, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 1282. “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,” then a 

court may approve a settlement. Lynn’s Food, 679 F.2d at 1354; see also Silva, 

307 Fed. Appx. at 351 (proposed settlement must be fair and reasonable). 

B. The Settlement Agreement is a Fair and Reasonable Resolution of 

a Bona Fide Dispute.

The parties’ settlement represents the resolution of a bona fide dispute 

between the parties. The parties disagree about whether Mr. Jordan was exempt 

from overtime payments under the FLSA’s computer employee exemption. That 

exemption states:

(a) Minimum wage and maximum hour requirements

The [minimum wage and maximum hour requirements] shall not 

apply with respect to—

. . . 

(17) any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer 

programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker, 

whose primary duty is—

(A) the application of systems analysis techniques and 

procedures, including consulting with users, to determine 

hardware, software, or system functional specifications; 

(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, 

creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or 

Case 2:14-cv-01018-MHH Document 15 Filed 10/03/14 Page 5 of 8
6

programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or 

system design specifications; 

(C) the design, documentation, testing, creation, or 

modification of computer programs related to machine 

operating systems; or 

(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), 

(B), and (C) the performance of which requires the same level 

of skills, and who, in the case of an employee who is 

compensated on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not 

less than $27.63 an hour.

29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(17). 

The parties dispute whether Mr. Jordan’s duties and the nature and extent of 

his discretion as an employee bring him within the computer employee exemption. 

(Doc. 11, p. 7). At the hearing on the parties’ motion to approve their settlement, 

the parties noted the scarcity of case law interpreting the computer employee 

exemption. The parties agree that the discovery necessary to fully support claims 

and defenses related to the computer employee exemption would be timeconsuming and costly for both parties. (Doc. 11, p. 8). Therefore, the Court finds 

that there is a bona fide dispute between the parties. Under the circumstances of 

this case, it is appropriate for the parties to seek an early resolution of their dispute 

so that they may forego the expense of detailed discovery and briefing concerning 

the application of the exemption. 

The Court also finds that the parties’ settlement is fair and reasonable. The 

settlement in this case is the product of arms-length negotiations between the 

Case 2:14-cv-01018-MHH Document 15 Filed 10/03/14 Page 6 of 8
7

parties’ attorneys. (Doc. 11, p. 6). Helix provided Mr. Jordan with a pay 

summary showing the number of hours Mr. Jordan worked in excess of 40 hours a 

week and the amount Mr. Jordan could recover if he prevailed in this lawsuit. 

(Doc. 11, p. 6). The settlement payment to which the parties have agreed is a fair 

compromise of disputed back wages and liquidated damages. (Doc. 11-1, ¶ 2). 

The settlement also covers Mr. Jordan’s attorneys’ fee and the court filing fee. 

(Doc. 11-1, ¶ 2). The parties agree that the total amount that Mr. Jordan will 

receive under the terms of the settlement exceeds the amount of back pay that Mr. 

Jordan could recover in this action. (Doc. 11, p. 7). Therefore, the Court finds that 

the settlement is fair and reasonable. 

With respect to the settlement agreement itself, the Court pays special 

attention to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the agreement. Those paragraphs contain broad 

release language that could hinder the goals of the FLSA. Hogan, 821 F. Supp. 2d 

at 1284 (stating that pervasive release language in an FLSA settlement is 

“overbroad and unfair” and should be “closely examined”). Paragraph 4 contains a 

waiver of all claims arising out of Mr. Jordan’s employment with Helix up to the 

date of the agreement. (Doc. 11-1, ¶ 4). Paragraph 5 contains a covenant not to 

sue over alleged misconduct preceding the date of the settlement agreement. (Doc. 

11-1, ¶ 5). At the hearing on the parties’ joint motion, Mr. Jordan’s counsel stated 

that he spoke with Mr. Jordan about other claims that Mr. Jordan potentially might 

Case 2:14-cv-01018-MHH Document 15 Filed 10/03/14 Page 7 of 8
8

assert against Helix and the impact of the covenant not to sue. Based on counsel’s 

representations, the Court finds that Mr. Jordan knowingly and willingly signed the 

waiver provision. See Hogan, 821 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1284 (M.D. Ala. 2011) 

(assuming an employee can waive independent claims in settling an FLSA action, 

“the court must be convinced that the employee has a full understanding of what he 

is releasing in exchange of a settlement award.”). Therefore, the release language

in paragraphs 4 and 5 will not hinder the settlement. 

III. Conclusion

Based on the Court’s review of the proposed settlement agreement and the 

information that the parties submitted at the hearing in this matter, the Court finds 

that there is a bona fide dispute regarding Mr. Jordan’s FLSA claim, and the terms 

that the parties have negotiated constitute a fair and reasonable resolution of that 

dispute. Therefore, the Court approves the parties’ proposed FLSA settlement. 

The Court will enter a separate order dismissing this lawsuit with prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this October 3, 2014.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01018-MHH Document 15 Filed 10/03/14 Page 8 of 8