HOLLY-TAYLOR

v.

CAREGIVER SERVICES INC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION¹

Upon referral, before the Court in this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case, is the parties’ joint motion for approval of their settlement and for the Court to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. (Doc. 14). The Court must determine whether the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” over Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) issues. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. 2d 1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1982).

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

If a settlement is unsupervised by the Department of Labor, compromise of FLSA claims is only available “[w]hen employees bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, . . . present to the district court a proposed settlement, [and it] . . . enter[s] a stipulated

by the employees provides some assurance of an adversarial context.” Id. at 1354. In adversarial cases: employees are likely . . . 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. If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages . . . actually in dispute; we allow the district court to approve the settlement . . . to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

As set forth in the Settlement Agreement, Defendant will pay a total sum of $2,000.00 to resolve this matter, to include the following: (1) $500.00 to Plaintiff representing full compensation for Plaintiff’s FLSA wage claims, including liquidated damages, (2) $500.00 to Plaintiff representing additional consideration for her full release of claims; and (3) $1,000.00 to Plaintiff’s counsel for attorney’s fees. (Doc. 14-1 at ¶¶ 1 &²).2 The parties were represented by experienced counsel and both the terms and conditions of the parties’ settlement were the subject of arms-length negotiations between counsel. The settlement amount was based on information learned through the exchange of Plaintiff’s statement of claim, pay records, and

that they were negotiated separately from Plaintiff’s recovery. (Doc. 14 at 5–6); see Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., Case No.: 6:07-cv-1335, 2009 WL 2371407 (M.D. Fla. Aug.⁴, 2009).

Under the circumstances, I submit that the amount of $1,000.00 for attorney’s fees and costs appears to be reasonable.³

B. General Release

As for the remaining portions of the Settlement Agreement, the release of claims in Paragraph⁴ may be impermissibly overbroad, as it extends beyond the named Defendant to: Its predecessors, successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, related corporations, affiliates, joint ventures, joint employers, insurers, as well as its and their present and former principals, members, agents, employees, officers, shareholders, and representatives[.] (Doc. 14-1 at ¶ 4.a.); see Arguelles v. Noor Baig, Inc., 6:16-cv-2024-Orl-37TBS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26024, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2017) (“a general release may not be used to release a non-party.”).

As explained in Arguelles, the prohibition on releasing non-parties is to

Accordingly, the award of attorney’s fees in this action does not reflect a determination that the hourly rate or time charged by Plaintiff’s counsel constitutes a reasonable hourly rate in this or any applicable market. prevent “plaintiff’s FLSA claim . . . . [from being] leverage[d] to produce a general release of all possible claims.” Id.

However, where the other entities fall “within the definition of ‘employer’ in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), [the release] would not be overbroad[.]” Beard v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-1154-Orl-41TBS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223490, at *12 (M.D. Fla. Nov.³, 2017).

Here, the release appears to extend to individuals and entities that could fall within the definition of employer. Cf. Langellier v. Brevard Extraditions Inc., No. 6:19-cv-1316-Orl-37EJK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63119, at *8-9 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2021) (recommending approving release covering non-named individuals that could be considered joint employers); with Niles v. Denny's Inc., No. 6:16-cv-999-Orl-40TBS, 2017 WL 1352232, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 1318666 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2017) (recommending modifying the release to limit it to the sole named defendant).

Further, generally, such broad releases are “‘side deals’ in which the employer extracts

a gratuitous (although usually valueless) release of all claims in exchange for money unconditionally owed to the employee” and therefore, “confer[] an uncompensated, unevaluated, and unfair benefit on the employer.” Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1351–52 (M.D. Fla. 2010). However, Courts in this District have approved FLSA settlement agreements accompanied by separate general releases where there is consideration beyond what is due for the FLSA claims.⁴ For example, courts frequently approve broad

Here, the parties recite that Plaintiff is receiving compensation for her FLSA wage claims, including liquidated damages, and an additional $500.00 for the broad general release. (Doc. 14-1 at 94 1.a.,², 4).

Under these circumstances, I submit that the Settlement Agreement should be approved with the broad general release.

HI. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, and upon due consideration, I recommend that the Court GRANT the parties’ joint motion for settlement approval (Doc. 14), and that the Court find the Settlement Agreement to be a fair and reasonable compromise of Plaintiff's FLSA claims. Further, as requested, the Court should dismiss the case with prejudice. Recommended in Ocala, Florida on December 14, 2023. es PHI Ge United States Magistrate Judge Copies furnished to: Presiding District Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party

Courtroom Deputy