Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-01205/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-01205-0/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

FRITZ STALLINGS; KEVIN

McNIESE,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

NATIONALFLEX, L.L.C., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-1205-SLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Approval of Settlement. (Doc. 12.) For the reasons set forth below, the court find the 1

parties’ Motion is due to be granted.

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

Reference to a document number, [“Doc. ___”], refers to the number assigned to each 1

document as it is filed in the court’s record.

FILED

 2014 Jul-25 PM 03:21

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:13-cv-01205-SLB Document 13 Filed 07/25/14 Page 1 of 4
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).

The parties have not submitted theirsettlement agreement to the court. However, their

Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement states, in pertinent part, as follows: 

3. . . . The Parties agree that the instant adversarial action involves

disputed factual and legal issues, including (i) the number of overtime hours

worked by Plaintiffs during each workweek, if any; (ii) whether Defendant

suffered or permitted Plaintiffs to work overtime hours; (iii) whether Plaintiffs

are entitled to recover liquidated damages; and (iv) whether a 2-year or 3-year

statute of limitations appl[ies] to Plaintiffs’ claims.

4. None of the [P]arties were willing to accept the inherent costs

and risks of continued litigation. Therefore, the Parties, represented by

undersigned counsel, engaged in settlement discussions and reached an

agreement to resolve this matter.

5. Plaintiff McNiese is receiving $3,500 in full and complete

settlement of his claims asserted in the lawsuit. Plaintiff McNiese also

2

Case 2:13-cv-01205-SLB Document 13 Filed 07/25/14 Page 2 of 4
asserted claims for his termination. Plaintiff Stallings is receiving $2,500 for

full and complete settlement of his claims in this lawsuit. Both above amounts

represent a compromise of the potential recovery for each Plaintiff. Plaintiff

McNiese originally claimed 336 hours of unpaid overtime calculated at an

overtime rate of $20.62 per hour for a potential recovery of $6,928.32. 

Doubling that amount for liquidated damages would equal $13,856.64. 

Plaintiff Stallings originally claimed 120 hours of unpaid overtime, which

calculated at an overtime rate of $20.62 equaled a potential recovery of

$4,639.50. Doubling that amount for the addition of liquidated damages 2

would equal $9,279.

Both Plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid overtime primarily centered around

travel time to and from work for after-hour calls. While Plaintiffs each

asserted claims for working through unpaid meal breaks and some weekend

work, the primary claims of unpaid overtime for travel were less certain due

to the fact that they were not during each Plaintiffs’ ordinary scheduled work

hours. Defendant disputed that it owed Plaintiffs any money at all,

maintaining that it had paid each Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked. The

parties negotiated at arm’s length a compromise settlement that removed the

uncertainties of litigation and insured a reasonable recovery by each Plaintiff

for hours worked based upon estimated potential recovery at trial.

6. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are receiving a total of $5,000 for fees and

reimbursement of $500 for expenses. Plaintiffs’ attorneys incurred a total time

investment in the case of approximately $5,900, plus $500 in expenses. 

Thereby, Plaintiffs’ attorneys are receiving less than their regular hourly rate

on this case. Attorneys’ fees and costs were negotiated at arm’s length

between the [P]arties.

(Doc. 12 ¶¶ 3-6 [footnote added].) The parties contend that the settlement is “fair.” (Id. ¶

7.) 

Actually, 120 hours at $20.62 per hour equals $2,474.40. The court assumes, 2

however, that the parties agreed that Stallings claimed entitlement to $4,639.50 for unpaid

overtime.

3

Case 2:13-cv-01205-SLB Document 13 Filed 07/25/14 Page 3 of 4
Based on the parties’ representations to the court, as set forth in the Joint Motion for

Approval of Settlement, the court finds that plaintiffs’ claims represent a bona fide dispute

over FLSA provisions, namely FLSA coverage and the amount of his backpay, if any. Also

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. 12), will

be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.

DONE this 25th day of July, 2014.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4

Case 2:13-cv-01205-SLB Document 13 Filed 07/25/14 Page 4 of 4