UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

SKYLAR NITESH, and

MARK NOVAK,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5694-MCR/HTC

ANDREWS PLUMBING AND 

ELECTRICAL INC, and

ROBERT ANDREWS,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiffs Skylar Nitesh and Mark Novak brought suit against Defendants 

Andrews Plumbing and Electrical, Inc. and its owner and operator, Robert Andrews, 

to recover unpaid overtime wages due and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. The parties have reached a 

settlement and now jointly move for Court approval of its terms, stipulating to the 

dismissal of the action with prejudice on approval. ECF No. 9. Having fully 

considered the motion and the settlement agreement, the Court finds the motion is 

due to be granted and the settlement approved.

“Congress made the FLSA’s provisions mandatory; thus the provisions are 

not subject to negotiation or bargaining between employers and employees.” Lynn’s 

Case 3:20-cv-05694-MCR-HTC Document 10 Filed 09/22/20 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

CASE NO. 3:20cv5694-MCR/HTC

Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982). The 

Eleventh Circuit explained in Lynn’s Food Stores that claims for back-wages under 

the FLSA may be settled or compromised only when the Department of Labor 

supervises the payment of back-wages or when the court enters a stipulated judgment 

“after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Id. at 1353. More precisely, courts 

must determine whether a compromise of a FLSA claim for wages represents “a fair 

and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Id. at 1355.

In a comprehensive review of Lynn’s Food Stores and the principles 

underlying the FLSA, the Middle District of Florida described this inquiry as 

involving both internal and external factors. See Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. 

Supp. 2d 1227, 1241-43 (M.D. Fla. 2010). The internal factors include whether (1) 

the compromise is fair and reasonable to the employee; (2) the compromise resolves 

a bona fide dispute; (3) a confidentiality provision contravenes FLSA policy; (4) the 

compromise involves a prospective waiver of FLSA rights; and (5) the compromise 

awards reasonable attorneys’ fees. See id. The external factors include whether the 

compromise otherwise frustrates the implementation of the FLSA, requiring the 

court to consider matters such as whether other employees are similarly situated or 

whether either the employer or the industry has a history of noncompliance. Id. at 

1243-44. Additionally, in deciding the reasonableness of a compromise, the stage 

of the proceedings and amount of discovery completed must be considered, as well 

Case 3:20-cv-05694-MCR-HTC Document 10 Filed 09/22/20 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

CASE NO. 3:20cv5694-MCR/HTC

as the complexity of the claim, probable success on the claim, the range of possible 

recovery, and the opinions of counsel. See id. at 1241. 

Plaintiffs allege they worked for Defendants as a plumber and plumber’s 

assistant within the last three years, earning an hourly rate of $12 or $13.50. They 

allege that they worked in excess of 40 hours per week but that their official 

paychecks would never exceed payment for 40 hours. Plaintiffs allege that instead 

of receiving time-and-a-half for overtime, they were paid their regular rate, in cash,

for all overtime hours. Plaintiffs maintain that they are non-exempt employees 

covered under the FLSA and that Defendants are employers and an enterprise 

covered under the FLSA. Defendants have not yet filed an answer, but the parties 

represent that Defendants deny all wrongdoing and liability. 

The parties exchanged pertinent documentation and engaged in settlement 

discussions, with each side represented by counsel, and now represent that they have 

reached a compromise. The parties expressed their good faith wish to avoid 

litigation and settle the matter expeditiously, despite the Defendants continued 

denial of all liability. The parties have agreed to pay a total of $15,117.50 to settle

the dispute. According to the settlement terms, Plaintiff Mark Novak will receive 

$4,520 as unpaid overtime less applicable taxes and $2,260 as consideration for 

liquidated and other damages; Plaintiff Skylar Nitesh will receive 2,225 for unpaid 

overtime, less applicable taxes, and $1,112.50 as consideration for liquidated and 

Case 3:20-cv-05694-MCR-HTC Document 10 Filed 09/22/20 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

CASE NO. 3:20cv5694-MCR/HTC

other damages; also, Plaintiffs attorneys will receive the sum of $5,000 to resolve 

the Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs.

1 The agreement states that the 

attorneys’ fees amount has been agreed to separately and without regard to the 

amounts paid to the Plaintiffs. In addition, the parties include a limited release of 

any all claims FLSA claim Plaintiffs have, might have, or believe they have against 

Defendants as of the date of the agreement. The parties represent that no other 

consideration exists and that the consideration provided is adequate to compensate 

Plaintiffs’ unpaid overtime claims. 

Having fully reviewed the matter, the Court finds the FLSA settlement 

agreement fair and reasonable. The parties have compromised a bona fide dispute

in good faith after exchanging documents and participating in discussions with the 

aid of experienced counsel. There is no confidentiality agreement that would 

contravene FLSA policy and no prospective waiver of FLSA claims. The release is 

appropriately limited to the FLSA claims raised in this litigation or that could have

been raised, and although the Complaint did not indicate an amount that Plaintiffs 

were claiming was due, they now expressly agree that the settlement sums will fully 

and properly compensate them for all hours worked. Additionally, the parties

represent that the attorneys’ fee award was separately negotiated without regard to 

 1 The settlement also states that Defendants will provide IRS W-2 and 1099 forms for the 

various amounts paid.

Case 3:20-cv-05694-MCR-HTC Document 10 Filed 09/22/20 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

CASE NO. 3:20cv5694-MCR/HTC

the amounts awarded to the Plaintiffs. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the 

attorneys’ fee recovery adversely influenced the amount of recovery on Plaintiffs’ 

FLSA claims. See Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., 715 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1228 (M.D. 

Fla. 2009). The Court finds that the settlement reflects a fair and reasonable 

compromise of disputed issues, and therefore, it will be approved, promoting the 

policy of encouraging the settlement of litigation. See Lynn’s Foods, 679 F.2d at 

1354. Also, based on the parties’ stipulation of dismissal, the case will be dismissed 

with prejudice.

Accordingly, the Joint Motion for Court Approval of FLSA Settlement 

Agreement and stipulation for dismissal with prejudice, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED, 

and the case is DISMSSED with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ settlement and

stipulation. The Clerk is directed to close the file, and there is no award of attorneys’

fees and costs, as these matters are provided for in the parties’ agreement.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of September 2020.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05694-MCR-HTC Document 10 Filed 09/22/20 Page 5 of 5