Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-01408/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-01408-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VALERIE CAMPBELLTOWNES,

Plaintiff;

vs.

AMEDISYS HOLDING, LLC

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:14-cv-01408-LSC

Memorandum of Opinion

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for approval of settlement.

(Doc. 24.) This suit was brought by Plaintiff Valerie Campbell-Townes (“CampbellTownes”) to collect alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”). See 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. In the “context of suits brought

directly by employees against their employer . . . to recover back wages for FLSA

violations,” any party to an FLSA settlement must present any proposed settlement

to the district court, which “may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the

settlement for fairness.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States Dept’ of Labor, 679

F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982).

Page 1 of 2

FILED

 2015 May-19 PM 12:59

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:14-cv-01408-LSC Document 26 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2
Having considered the guidelines set forth by the Eleventh Circuit for approval

of an FLSAsettlement, the Court finds that the proposed settlement agreement is fair,

as it reflects a reasonable compromise ofissues actually in dispute. The settlementwas

reached in an adversarial context in which Campbell-Townes was represented by

competent and experienced counsel, and the totality of the proposed settlementis fair

and reasonable as required by Lynn’s Food. Id. at 1354. Furthermore, the proposed

agreement does not bind non-parties to the present action. Lastly, the proposed

agreement does not ask the Court to assess attorney’s fees, as the parties have agreed

on the amount owed.

For the reasons stated above, the joint motion for approval of settlement

agreement (Doc. 24) is due to be granted.

Done this 19th day of May 2015.

 

L. SCOTT COOGLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

177822

Page 2 of 2

Case 2:14-cv-01408-LSC Document 26 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2