MONTE C. RICHARDSON, Magistrate Judge.
This case was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff sought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs for Defendant's alleged failure to compensate him for overtime wages during his employment as a production line packer at Defendant's packing and warehouse facility in St. John's County, Florida.
On February 13, 2017, the parties filed the Joint Motion, seeking court approval of their Wage and Hour Settlement Agreement ("settlement agreement") and dismissal of this action with prejudice, with a provision that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce Defendant's obligation to make the payments to Plaintiffs and their attorney pursuant to the settlement agreement. (Doc. 18.) On February 14, 2017, the Court took the Joint Motion under advisement and directed the parties to supplement it, no later than February 28, 2017, by filing Plaintiffs' counsel's contemporaneous time records and advising the Court whether any claims are being compromised and whether the attorney's fees and costs were negotiated separately from the amounts to be paid to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 19.)
On February 23, 2017, the parties supplemented the Joint Motion and filed Plaintiffs' counsel's time and billing records, as directed by the Court. (See Docs. 20 & 21.) The parties advise that Plaintiff Baynard's claim is not compromised because, under the settlement agreement, he would receive a full and complete payment, without compromise, for all unpaid overtime hours and liquidated damages for the two years preceding this lawsuit. (Doc. 21 at 1.) Further:
(Id. at 1-2.) The parties also advise that the amount set aside for attorneys' fees was negotiated separately. (Id. at 2.)
In general, strong public policy favors the voluntary settlement of lawsuits. See, e.g., Schering-Plough Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.3d 1056, 1072-73 (11th Cir. 2005); Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless, 609 F.3d 590, 593 (3d Cir. 2010); United States v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 591 F.3d 484, 490 (6th Cir. 2010). However, fearing the often widely disparate bargaining power that typically exists between employers and employees, Congress made the FLSA's provisions mandatory, i.e., "not subject to negotiation or bargaining between employers and employees." Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982). Thus, before a court may dismiss an FLSA case based on the parties' settlement, the court must generally determine that the settlement represents "a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions" after "scrutinizing the settlement for fairness." Id. at 1353, 1355.
However, some courts have stated that "[i]f the parties submit a stipulation stating that the plaintiff's claims will be paid in full, without compromise, there is no need for the Court to review the settlement." Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., 715 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1226 n.6 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (citation omitted); see also King v. My Online Neighborhood, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-435-Orl-22JGG, 2007 WL 737575, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2007) ("Where the employer offers the plaintiff full compensation on his FLSA claim, no compromise is involved and judicial approval is not required.").
The parties' Joint Motion and supplemental filings indicate that the claims of all three Plaintiffs are not compromised because, pursuant to the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs would receive full compensation for their unpaid overtime hours and an equal amount of liquidated damages.
The Court accepts the parties' representation that Plaintiffs are receiving full compensation for their claims, without compromise. Accordingly, judicial approval of the settlement is not necessary. Further, given that there has been no compromise of Plaintiffs' claims, there is no reason to believe that the attorney fee portion of the settlement affected Plaintiffs' recovery. Therefore, there is no reason to scrutinize the fee.
Accordingly, it is respectfully
The Joint Motion (