IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WILLIAM STANLEY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PATRIOT INSPECTION SERVICES, 

INC.,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

6-20-CV-00283-ADA

ORDER APPROVING JOINT MOTION OF CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Before the court is the Joint Motion to Approve Confidential Settlement Agreement and 

Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Plaintiff William Stanley, individually and for other all others 

similarly situated and Defendant Patriot Inspection Services, Inc. ECF No. 18. For the reasons 

described herein, the Courts find that the Motion should be GRANTED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Fifth Circuit recognized in Martin v. Spring Break '83 Productions, L.L.C. that not 

every FLSA settlement requires court approval because “parties may reach private compromises 

as to FLSA claims where there is a bona fide dispute as to the amount of hours worked or 

compensation due.” 688 F.3d 247, 255 (5th Cir. 2012). Other courts in this circuit have reviewed 

proposed settlement agreements for “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” upon 

request of the parties. See Trevino v. Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-01304-FB-RBF, 

2019 WL 3816302, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May 6, 2019). When evaluating proposed FLSA settlement 

agreements, Courts in this circuit post-Martin continue to use the Lynn’s Food Stores approach. 

Under Lynn’s Food Stores, “When employees bring a private action for back wages under the 

FLSA, and present to the district court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a 

Case 6:20-cv-00283-ADA-JCM Document 19 Filed 01/26/21 Page 1 of 4
stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. 

United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). Under Lynn's Food Stores, the Court must 

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

provisions.” Alaniz v. Maxum Petroleum Operating Co., Inc., No. SA-15-CV-00373-XR, 2016 

WL 6462206, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2016) (citing Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.3d at 1355).

This Court is persuaded by method used in Lynn’s Food Stores and other followed by other 

courts in this District. 

The parties request that the court review the settlement agreement for fairness, using 

factors illustrated in Rule 23 class action settlement claims. In Genesis v. Symcyk, The United 

States Supreme Court made clear that “Rule 23 actions are fundamentally different from 

collective actions under the FLSA.” Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symcyk, 569 U.S. 1523, 1529 

(2013). The Court set forth a threshold determination for settlement of FLSA claims. Courts

must ensure that the settlement resolves a “bona fide dispute.” Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 

U.S. 697, 703 (1945). “A preliminary question arises as to whether respondent's release was 

given in settlement of a bona fide dispute between the parties with respect to coverage or amount 

due under the [FLSA] or whether it constituted a mere waiver of his right....” Sims v. Hous. Auth. 

of City of El Paso, No. EP-10-CV-109-KC, 2011 WL 3862194, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2011).

The FLSA cases from the Supreme Court further support the Lynn’s Food Stores approach 

described above. Accordingly, the Court will review the settlement agreement to determine that 

the settlement is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.”

Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.3d at 1355.

Case 6:20-cv-00283-ADA-JCM Document 19 Filed 01/26/21 Page 2 of 4
II. ANALYSIS

For the reasons described below, the proposed settlement is a “fair and reasonable 

resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.3d at 1355.

A. Bona Fide Dispute

At issue here is whether members of the class were properly compensated for all hours 

worked. Stanley contends that himself and other workers were not compensated enough. While 

Patriot contends that the workers were always properly compensated. Furthermore, the parties 

disagree about the classification of the members of the class. Stanley contends that members of 

the class are similarly situated. Patriot continues to maintain that members of the class are not 

similarly situated, and the suits should be tried separately. The Parties also dispute the culpability 

of Patriot. Thus, under provisions of the FSLA the recoverable period of time for unpaid wages 

would differ from two to three years based on the parties conflicting positions. As demonstrated 

by the parties, a bona fide dispute exists over FLSA provisions. 

B. Fair and Reasonable Resolution

The undersigned reviewed the terms of the settlement and concludes that the settlement is

fair and reasonable. The Settlement Class Members’ attorneys have considerable experience 

settling FLSA cases. ECF. No. 18 at 12. The settlement reflects an arms' length compromise of 

the disputed claims. See Collins v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 714, 720 (E.D. La. 

2008).

III. CONCLUSION

Pursuant to the Parties’ Motion, having been found to constitute a fair and reasonable 

compromise on a bona fide dispute, the Court is of the opinion that it should be and is hereby 

GRANTED. 

Case 6:20-cv-00283-ADA-JCM Document 19 Filed 01/26/21 Page 3 of 4
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Court conditionally certifies the following class for 

settlement purposes and pursuant to the Original Class and Collective Action Complaint: 

All workers who worked for, or on behalf of, Defendant that Defendant paid 

according to a day rate plan at any time from September 14, 2017 to September 

14, 2020

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and proposed 

Notice, proposed fees and settlement structure to issue to the conditionally certified class is 

APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case and all claims asserted in this case are 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each Party to bear its own costs, except as set forth in 

the Settlement Agreement. 

SIGNED this 26th day of January, 2021.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00283-ADA-JCM Document 19 Filed 01/26/21 Page 4 of 4