IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES KUCZMASKI, ADAM PIKE, )

RYAN PHILLIPS, JOHN STONE, )

SUBANE LOWERY, KEVIN BELL, )

HAMP CRUM, III, FREDERICK )

S. KUCZMASKI, KEVIN MOORE, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

Plaintiffs, ) 2:06cv731-MHT

) (WO)

v. )

)

US FOODSERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION

This case is currently before the court on plaintiffs

James Kuczmaski, Adam Pike, Ryan Phillips, John Stone,

Subane Lowery, Kevin Bell, Hamp Crum, III, Frederick S.

Kuczmaski, and Kevin Moore and defendant US FoodService’s

joint motion to approve a settlement of plaintiffs’ claim

filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29

U.S.C. §§ 201-219. For the reasons that follow, the

settlement will be approved.

Because the FLSA was enacted to protect workers from

the poor wages and long hours that can result from great

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 48 Filed 10/18/07 Page 1 of 4
2

inequalities in bargaining power between employers and

employees, the FLSA’s provisions are mandatory and,

except in two narrow circumstances, are generally not

subject to bargaining, waiver, or modification by

contract or settlement. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil,

324 U.S. 697 (1945). The first exception is that the

Secretary of Labor may supervise the payment of back

wages to employees; employees who accept such payments

waive their rights to bring suits for liquidated damages,

provided the employer pays the back amount in full. 29

U.S.C. § 216(c); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United

States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1982).

The second route to settlement, and the one that is

applicable here, occurs when an employee brings a private

action for back wages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); the

employee and employer present a proposed settlement to

the district court, and the district court reviews the

judgment and enters it as a stipulated judgment. Lynn’s

Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354 ("Settlements may be

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 48 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 4
3

permissible in the context of a suit brought by employees

under the FLSA for back wages because initiation of the

action by the employees provides some assurance of an

adversarial context. The employees are likely to be

represented by an attorney who can protect their rights

under the statute. Thus, when the parties submit a

settlement to the court for approval, the settlement is

more likely to reflect a reasonable compromise of

disputed issues than a mere waiver of statutory rights

brought about by an employer’s overreaching.”).

In reviewing a settlement of an FLSA private claim,

a court must “scrutiniz[e] the settlement for fairness,”

id. at 1353, and determine that the settlement is a “fair

and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over

FLSA provisions.” Id. at 1355. “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[,] ... the district

court [may] approve the settlement in order to promote

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 48 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 4
* In Lynn’s Food Stores, the court disallowed a

compromise because it was not brought in the context of

an employee lawsuit, but rather was an attempt by an

employer to “settle” backpay claims because of a pending

investigation by the Secretary of Labor. The

“compromise” was unfair and reflected the extreme

inequalities of bargaining position that the FLSA was

designed to protect against.

the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Id.

at 1354.*

In this case, there are bona fide disputes over FLSA

provisions, namely FLSA coverage and the amount of

backpay. Further, after hearing from each plaintiff and

reviewing the settlement agreement, the court concludes

that the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution

of these bona fide disputes. 

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 18th day of October, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 48 Filed 10/18/07 Page 4 of 4