Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_18-cv-00643/USCOURTS-alnd-2_18-cv-00643-1/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

DARIAN JOHNSEY, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAL TK, L.L.C. ,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00643-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This opinion concerns a proposed FLSA settlement. In the complaint, the 

plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. The parties have agreed to settle the plaintiffs’ FLSA 

claims, and they have asked the Court to review the terms of the proposed settlement. 

(Doc. 41-1). The plaintiffs have filed a supplemental motion providing additional 

information regarding the negotiated attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 43). For the reasons 

stated below, the Court approves the settlement because it is a fair and reasonable 

compromise of a bona fide dispute. 

I. BACKGROUND

Darian Johnsey and Holly Hilton filed this action against BAL TK LLC on 

April 24, 2018. (Doc. 1). Ariel Wagner joined the action as a plaintiff a few weeks 

FILED

 2020 Apr-30 AM 11:36

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:18-cv-00643-MHH Document 44 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 9
later. (Doc. 7). BAL TK LLC operated the Tilted Kilt Pub and Eatery in 

Birmingham, Alabama. (Doc. 41, p. 2). Each plaintiff worked as a tipped employee 

at the Tilted Kilt. (Doc. 7, p. 4). Ms. Johnsey worked as a tipped employee from 

July 2016 through November 2016. (Doc. 7, p. 4). Ms. Hilton worked as a tipped 

employee from “in or about May of 2016 to October 2016.” (Doc. 7, p. 4). Ms. 

Wagner worked as a tipped employee from “approximately July of 2016 until May 

of 2017 when the restaurant closed.” (Doc. 7, p. 4).

The Court certified an FLSA class comprised of all former tipped employees 

who worked as waitresses and bartenders at the Tilted Kilt in Birmingham, Alabama 

at Perimeter Park South from January 2016 to May 2017. (Doc. 30). Jadelyn Bray 

(Doc. 36-1), Alexandria Knight (Doc. 36-2), and Courtney Berry (Doc. 37),

consented to join the suit as plaintiffs.

 The plaintiffs allege that BAL TK LLC violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206, 

et seq., by failing to pay them the required minimum wage for each hour worked and 

by requiring them to share a percentage of their tips to reimburse BAL TK LLC for 

ordinary business expenses. (Doc. 7, p. 6). Specifically, the plaintiffs assert that 

BAL TK LLC did not pay them for time spent “don[ning] and doff[ing] their 

employer-mandated uniforms.” (Doc. 7, p. 2). The plaintiffs allege that they had to 

arrive 30 minutes before their shifts began to put on the uniforms, which consisted 

of a kilt, knee high socks, a blouse, and a brassier, and “do their hair and makeup to 

Case 2:18-cv-00643-MHH Document 44 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 9
the satisfaction of the manager on duty.” (Doc. 7, pp. 6–7, 8). The plaintiffs add 

that BAL TK LLC’s policy required tipped employees to attend pre-shift meetings 

before clocking in. (Doc. 7, p. 9). The plaintiffs assert that they were 

uncompensated for this off-the-clock time. (Doc. 7, pp. 7, 9).

The plaintiffs also allege that BAL TK LLC “deducted in excess of $100.00” 

from their initial checks to reimburse BAL TK LLC for the cost of their uniforms. 

(Doc. 7, p. 8). The plaintiffs assert that this deduction drove their pay rate for those 

pay periods below the minimum wage. (Doc. 7, p. 2). 

Finally, the plaintiffs allege that BAL TK LLC took the tip credit and failed 

to pay tipped employees the $2.13 per hour due as a minimum base wage. (Doc. 7, 

p. 2). The plaintiffs assert that BAL TK LLC required tipped employees to 

reimburse the company for any customer who walked out without paying the bill, 

thereby preventing tipped employees from retaining the total proceeds of their 

gratuities. (Doc. 7, p. 11).

BAL TK LLC denies that it violated the FLSA. (Doc. 41, p. 2). BAL TK 

LLC asserts that it has no knowledge of uncompensated work and “never authorized, 

required, requested, suffered, or permitted” any of the conduct in violation of the 

FLSA. (Doc. 10, p. 12). BAL TK LLC also raises several affirmative defenses. 

(Doc. 10, pp. 12–13).

Case 2:18-cv-00643-MHH Document 44 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 9
After conducting written discovery, the parties engaged in arms-length 

settlement negotiations. (Doc. 41, p. 4). In exchange for dismissal of FLSA claims 

against it with prejudice, BAL TK LLC agreed to settle the plaintiffs’ FLSA claims 

for a sum of $24,666.71. (Doc. 41-1, p. 4). Of that amount, the six plaintiffs will 

receive a total of $5,666.71. The parties submit that this amount represents the full 

compensation for all unpaid work alleged, $100 for each plaintiff (representing the 

cost of the uniform plaintiffs allege they were required to buy), and $1,000 for each 

named class representative. (Doc. 41, p. 4). The $5,666.71 will be divided among 

the plaintiffs as follows:

Darian Johnsey $1,356.95

Holly Hilton $1,654.72

Ariel Wagner $1,684.59

Jadelyn Bray $760.67

Alexandria Knight $109.78

Courtney Berry $100.00

(Doc. 41-1, p. 3). The balance of the total settlement, $19,000, shall be paid to

plaintiffs’ counsel. The $19,000 payment consists of $17,866.45 in attorneys’ fees 

and $1,133.55 in costs. (Doc. 41, p. 4). Plaintiffs’ counsel declare that they have 

spent a total of 83.3 hours on the case, 64 hours by Mr. Clark and 19.3 hours by Mr. 

Case 2:18-cv-00643-MHH Document 44 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 9
Cartwright. (Doc. 43). Mr. Clark declares that courts have approved an hourly rate 

in similar consumer class actions of $450 and $600 per hour. (Doc. 43-1, p. 2). Mr. 

Cartwright declares that his hourly rate for representing employees in FLSA actions 

is $385 per hour. (Doc. 43-2, p. 2). The hourly rate of the negotiated attorneys’ fee 

in this case would be $214.48 per hour.

On this record, the Court considers the parties’ motion to approve the 

proposed settlement of the plaintiffs’ FLSA claims.

II. DISCUSSION

“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 11⁄2 times the employees’ regular wages.” 

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 147 (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 

Case 2:18-cv-00643-MHH Document 44 Filed 04/30/20 Page 5 of 9
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 her employer violated the FLSA, 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, 

324 U.S. at 707. “Any amount due that is not in dispute must be paid unequivocally; 

employers may not extract valuable concessions in return for payment that is 

indisputably owed under the 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 1352; see also 

Hogan, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 1281–82. “[T]he parties requesting review of an FLSA 

compromise must provide enough information for the court to examine the bona 

Case 2:18-cv-00643-MHH Document 44 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 9
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 enable the Court “to ensure 

that employees have received all uncontested wages 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 (emphasizing that a 

proposed settlement must be fair and reasonable). 

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

finds that there is a bona fide dispute in this matter that supports the proposed 

settlement. The plaintiffs maintain that BAL TK LLC did not compensate them for 

time spent to don and doff their employer-mandated uniforms, took deductions from 

the plaintiffs’ tipped wages to cover the cost of the uniforms, and did not comply 

with the tip credit provisions of the FLSA. (Doc. 7, pp. 7–11). BAL TK LLC denies

violating the FLSA in any manner and has asserted numerous defenses. (Doc. 10, 

p. 12). This bona fide dispute supports the parties’ proposed settlement.

The method used to calculate the plaintiffs’ disputed wages is fair and 

reasonable under the circumstances of this case. The parties attest that $5,666.71 is 

the full amount of damages that could have been awarded to the plaintiffs under the 

Case 2:18-cv-00643-MHH Document 44 Filed 04/30/20 Page 7 of 9
theories presented and based on the evidence of hours worked by the plaintiffs. 

(Doc. 41, p. 5).

The parties also negotiated, and the defendants do not object to, attorneys’

fees and expenses of $19,000.00. (Doc. 41, p. 6). The “FLSA requires judicial 

review of the reasonableness of counsel’s legal fees to assure both that counsel is 

compensated adequately and that no conflict of interest taints the amount the 

wronged employee recovers under a settlement agreement.” Silva, 307 Fed. Appx. 

at 351 (citing Lynn’s Food, 679 F.2d at 1352); see also Briggins v. Elwood TRI, Inc., 

3 F. Supp. 3d 1277, 1290 (N.D. Ala. 2014) (noting that even where payment of 

attorney’s fees does not reduce the compensation negotiated for and payable to an 

FLSA plaintiff, “the court is required to review for fairness and approve the fee and 

expenses proposed to be paid by the defendants in the settlement.”). Based on the 

work the plaintiffs’ attorneys performed in this case, and after review of the 

settlement agreement and plaintiffs’ counsels’ affidavits, the Court finds that the 

attorney’s fee of $17,866.45 is fair and reasonable. It does not appear that the fee 

award compromises the plaintiffs’ recovery. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 

agreed attorney’s fee adequately compensates plaintiffs’ counsel and does not taint 

plaintiffs’ recovery. 

III. CONCLUSION

Case 2:18-cv-00643-MHH Document 44 Filed 04/30/20 Page 8 of 9
For the reasons stated above, the Court approves the parties’ proposed 

settlement of the plaintiffs’ FLSA claims. The Court concludes that there is a bona 

fide dispute regarding plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, and the terms that the parties have 

negotiated constitute a fair and reasonable resolution of that dispute. The Court will 

enter a separate order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and closing the 

file.1

 

DONE and ORDERED this April 30, 2020.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 The Court notes that the release provision in the parties’ settlement agreement is broad, causing 

the plaintiffs to release not only their FLSA claims but also all claims for economic damages 

arising out of their employment with BAL TK LLC. (Doc. 41-1, pp. 2-3). The plaintiffs have not 

released claims for physical injuries. (Doc. 41-1, p. 3). In an FLSA action, broad release 

provisions typically are not acceptable. Hogan, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 1284. In this case, the Court 

approves the broad release provision in the parties’ settlement agreement because the plaintiffs are 

resolving not only their FLSA claims but also their claims for unjust enrichment under Alabama 

law. (Doc. 7, pp. 6–7). 

Case 2:18-cv-00643-MHH Document 44 Filed 04/30/20 Page 9 of 9