TRAVELSTEAD
v.
U.N. MANAGEMENT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to approve the FLSA settlement agreement, including its general release provision.
Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly moved for approval of their settlement agreement in an FLSA case. The Magistrate Judge recommended approval, and the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fair Labor Standards Act (Flsa) Settlement Approval cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case, the parties jointly moved for approval of their settlement agreement (Doc. 21-1 (“Agreement”)). (Doc. 21 (“Motion”).) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd recommends the Court grant the Motion and approve the Agreement. (Doc. 22 (“R&R”).) The parties did not object, so the Court examines the R&R for clear error only. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding none, the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety. The Court notes that the settlement at issue includes a general release of all Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants. (Doc. 21-2, ¶ 3.) The Court has previously ruled that “[p]ervasive, overly broad releases have no place in settlements of most FLSA claims.” Bright v. Mental Health Res. Ctr., Inc., No. 3:10-cv-427, 2012 WL 868804, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2012) (Dalton, J.). This is because “in the typical
FLSA case, the indeterminate nature of general releases also prevents the Court from being able to evaluate the claims that have been waived by employees, thereby making a fairness determination difficult if not impossible.” Id. Unlike the typical case, where the parties are unwilling or unable to identify a potential claim that plaintiffs are waiving, here, the parties specify potential wrongful eviction claims Plaintiffs may have against Defendants. (Doc. 21, ¶ 9); see Bright, 2012 WL 868804, at *4. And Plaintiffs’ waiver of these claims provide the additional justification needed for the separate agreement and consideration. (See Docs. 21-1, 21-2); Bright, 2012 WL 868804, at *4. So the Court agrees with Judge Kidd’s reasoning that the separate release agreement does not taint the reasonableness and fairness of the FLSA Agreement. (Doc. 22, pp. 9–10.) Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. The R&R (Doc. 22) is ADOPTED AND CONFIRMED and made a
part of this Order in its entirety. 2. The Motion (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. 3. The Agreement (Doc. 21-1) is APPROVED as fair and reasonable.
4. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on January 30, 2023.
a) ibe. ROY B. DALTON JR’ United States District Judge