DANIEL C. IRICK, Magistrate Judge.
This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:
On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging a cause of action for an alleged violation of the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA). Doc. 1. On March 12, 2018, Defendant answered Plaintiff's Complaint. Docs. 10. The Court entered an FLSA Scheduling Order on March 14, 2018. Doc. 12.
On April 18, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to approve settlement (the Motion), to which the parties attached their proposed settlement agreement (the Agreement). Doc. 15. The Agreement provides that Defendant will pay Plaintiff $7,748.00 to settle her FLSA claims: $1,624.00 in unpaid wages, $1,624.00 in liquidated damages, and $4,500.00 in attorney fees. Id. at 2, 7. The parties request that the Court review and approve the Agreement, and dismiss this case with prejudice. Id. at 1-3.
The settlement of a claim for unpaid minimum or overtime wages under the FLSA may become enforceable by obtaining the Court's approval of the settlement agreement.
See Leverso v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., Nat'l Assoc., 18 F.3d 1527, 1531 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1994). The Court may approve the settlement if it reflects a reasonable compromise of the FLSA claims that are actually in dispute. See Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354. There is a strong presumption in favor of settlement. See Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977).
The Court, in addition to the foregoing factors, must also consider the reasonableness of the attorney fees to be paid pursuant to the settlement agreement "to assure both that counsel is compensated adequately and that no conflict of interest taints the amount the wronged employee recovers under a settlement agreement." Silva v. Miller, 307 F. App'x 349, 351-52 (11th Cir. 2009).
The parties were represented by experienced counsel in this litigation, which involved disputed issues of liability under the FLSA. See Docs. 1; 10; 15 at 4-5. In their Motion, the parties represented the following: counsel for the parties thoroughly reviewed and examined the relevant employment documents; the parties would like to avoid the cost and uncertainty associated with continued litigation; and the Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution based upon all available evidence. Doc. 15 at 1-5.
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned finds that $3,248.00 is a fair and reasonable settlement amount in this case.
Paragraph E of the Agreement provides as follows:
Doc. 15 at 7 (emphasis added). The undersigned finds that the italicized language — "and otherwise as a result of the employment relationship" — is overbroad and susceptible to an interpretation foreclosing Plaintiff from bringing causes of action wholly unrelated to unpaid wage claims. Therefore, the undersigned finds that the inclusion of the italicized language contained in paragraph E fails judicial scrutiny. See Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1352 (M.D. Fla. 2010) ("A compromise of an FLSA claim that contains a pervasive release of unknown claims fails judicial scrutiny."). The remaining terms in the Agreement do not affect the overall reasonableness of the settlement, as the Agreement does not contain a confidentiality provision, non-disparagement clause, or other potentially problematic contractual provision sometimes found in proposed FLSA settlement agreements.
Accordingly, it is
Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff's counsel will receive a total of $4,500.00 as attorney fees and costs. Doc. 15 at 7. The parties represented that the attorney fees and costs were negotiated separately and without regard to the amounts paid to Plaintiff. Id. at 2. The settlement is reasonable to the extent previously discussed, and the parties' foregoing representation adequately establishes that the issue of attorney fees and costs was agreed upon separately and without regard to the amount paid to Plaintiff. See Bonetti, 715 F. Supp. 2d at 1228. Accordingly, pursuant to Bonetti, it is
Accordingly, it is
A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation's factual findings and legal conclusions. A party's failure to file written objections waives that party's right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.