UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-80809-RAR

JAMES CURRY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

B & B (WPB) LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PARTIES’

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Approval 

of Settlement Agreement and Dismissal With Prejudice [ECF No. 17] (“Amended Motion”). On 

May 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Complaint [ECF No. 1], alleging Defendants failed to pay him

overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). See generally Compl. On 

August 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and 

Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF No. 15]. The Court denied this Motion because the Settlement 

Agreement did not indicate an award of liquidated damages to Plaintiff, erroneously included a 

confidentiality provision, and did not establish the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees included 

therein. See Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement Approval [ECF No. 16]. Insisting 

that he has rectified those errors, Plaintiff has now filed the Amended Motion, which includes the 

parties’ amended agreement. See Ex. A to Amended Motion [ECF No. 17-1] (“Amended 

Agreement”). 

According to the Amended Agreement, the parties have agreed to resolve this dispute for 

$3,599.58, allocated as follows: $99.79 to Plaintiff as unpaid wages; $99.79 to Plaintiff as 

Case 9:20-cv-80809-RAR Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2020 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

liquidated damages; and $3,400 to Plaintiff’s counsel for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Amended Agreement at ¶ 3. While the Amended Motion avers that “[t]he [Amended] Agreement 

does not contain a confidentiality clause,” Amended Motion at 2, this is contradicted by the plain 

terms of the agreement, see Amended Agreement at ¶ 2 (“The Agreement . . . contains terms of 

confidentiality and non-disparagement, which are material terms of the Agreement.”) (emphasis 

added). 

ANALYSIS

Before the Court can approve a settlement of FLSA claims, it must scrutinize the settlement

and determine that it is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA

provisions.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982). 

If the settlement reflects a reasonable compromise over FLSA issues that are actually in dispute,

the Court may approve the settlement “to promote the policy of encouraging settlement in

litigation.” Id. at 1354. 

A proposed FLSA settlement agreement may also be rejected as “unreasonable” if it 

contains a confidentiality provision because it “both contravenes the legislative purpose of the 

FLSA and undermines the Department of Labor’s regulatory effort to notify employees of their 

FLSA rights.” Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1242-43 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2010); 

see also Hicks v. Vortex Marine Construction, Inc., No. 16-1226, 2017 WL 2664361, at *5 (M.D. 

Fla. May 4, 2017) (citations omitted) (“Parties frequently include confidentiality provisions in their 

FLSA settlement agreements and those provisions are regularly rejected by the courts.”). 

Moreover, an FLSA settlement agreement generally should not be sealed or reviewed in camera

unless there is a compelling interest in secrecy. Hicks, 2017 WL 2664361 at *5 (citations omitted) 

(finding that reviewing an FLSA settlement agreement in camera “thwarts Congress’ intent” and 

limits the public’s access to an issue of “private-public character”); see also Jessup v. Luther, 277 

Case 9:20-cv-80809-RAR Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2020 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

F.3d 926, 929-30 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding that a settlement agreement requiring “input by a federal 

judge . . . is presumptively a public document”).

Upon review of the record and the parties’ documented basis for settlement of this FLSA

case, including an award of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court finds that settlement of 

this action is fair and reasonable, and the requested fee is fair and reasonable and not grossly 

excessive. However, the Agreement’s confidentiality provisions are unreasonable and cannot be 

included as part of the parties’ Agreement. 

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing analysis, as well as a review of the record and the parties’ 

documented basis for settlement of the instant FLSA case, the Court can approve the Agreement

in part. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Motion [ECF No. 17] is GRANTED. 

2. The Amended Agreement [ECF No. 17-1], which has been duly filed as a record of 

the Court, is APPROVED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The confidentiality provisions

detailed in paragraph 2 of the Agreement are hereby STRICKEN. All other remaining provisions 

of the Agreement are APPROVED. 

3. The above-styled action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 14th day of September, 2020.

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cv-80809-RAR Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2020 Page 3 of 3