UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-22320-CIV-GOODMAN

[CONSENT CASE]

WILLIAM WHELAN,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ETERNITY BEACHWEAR &

MARKET LLC, et al.

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER APPROVING FLSA SETTLEMENT AND CLOSING CASE

The Court held a telephonic fairness hearing on August 7, 2020 and heard from 

counsel regarding the fairness of the settlement of Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). [ECF No. 13].

In general, the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA1 are 

mandatory and not subject to negotiation or bargaining between employers and 

employees. See Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945). But there are two ways 

employees may settle and waive a claim against their employer for unpaid minimum 

wages or overtime pay under the FLSA: (1) if the payment of unpaid minimum 

wage/overtime pay is supervised by the Secretary of Labor or (2) in a private lawsuit 

 

1 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

Case 1:20-cv-22320-JG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

brought by an employee, if the parties present the district court with a proposed 

settlement and the court enters an order approving the fairness of the settlement. 

29 U.S.C. § 216(c); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S., 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982); see 

also Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108 (1946). 

An employee may settle and release FLSA claims against his employer without the 

supervision of the Secretary of Labor if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the 

settlement occurs in an adversarial context; (2) there are issues of FLSA coverage and/or 

computations actually in dispute; and (3) the district court enters an order approving the 

settlement after scrutinizing the fairness of the settlement. Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 

1354.

The Court considered the factors outlined in Lynn’s Food Stores and also considered 

the strengths of the parties’ cases; the factual positions of the parties; the strengths and 

weaknesses in the parties’ respective cases; and the parties’ desire to resolve the dispute 

sooner, rather than later.

The Court finds that the settlement here represents a genuine compromise of a 

bona fide dispute. Defendants, who have denied liability, have agreed to pay Plaintiff 

more than they believe Plaintiff is due under the law. All parties have agreed to settle as 

a result of reasonable strategic and financial considerations. 

The Undersigned also reviewed Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records, which appear 

to be reasonable. [ECF No. 12]. Plaintiff’s counsel is agreeing to take a discount of the 

Case 1:20-cv-22320-JG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

amount of fees incurred. Plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $450 is on the higher side. However, 

even if counsel’s rate was reduced to $375 per hour, Plaintiff’s counsel’s portion of the 

settlement is still discounted from the time incurred. Therefore, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees are reasonable in light of his agreement to accept less than the 

fee total.

In addition, the Court finds that the settlement here occurred in an adversarial 

context, and there are genuine coverage and computation issues in dispute. The Court 

further finds that the settlement reached by the parties represents a reasonable 

compromise by both sides and is fair and reasonable.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the parties’ settlement 

agreement is fair and reasonable, the settlement is APPROVED, and this action is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the terms of 

the parties’ settlement. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE and deny all pending 

motions as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 19, 2020.

Copies furnished to: 

All counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22320-JG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 3 of 3