ORDER

WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.

On November 20, 2015, the parties attempted to stipulate to the dismissal of this case after reaching a negotiated settlement. (Doc. 24; Doc. 25.) The Court, however, refused to dismiss their case because it involved allegations that Defendant Bryan County Board of Education ("BOE") violated the minimum wage provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 206, and the parties had failed to file the settlement terms. (Doc. 26.) As a result, the Court was unable to scrutinize the agreement for fairness as required under the FLSA. See Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1350 (11th Cir. 1982); see also 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).

In response, the parties provided the Court's deputy clerk with an electronic copy of the settlement agreement. According to that document, Plaintiffs agree to

In addition, the agreement provides that Plaintiffs will "release, settle and extinguish forever all claims which were asserted or which could have been asserted, whether known or unknown, accrued or unaccrued as of the date of this Release in that certain lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division." Finally, the agreement calls for "each party to pay their own attorney's fees and costs."

After careful consideration, the Court declines to accept the proposed settlement agreement. As an initial matter, the agreement should be filed as part of the public record in this case. See Briggins v. Elwood TRI, Inc., 3 F.Supp.3d 1277, 1280 (N.D. Ala. 2014); Hogan v. Allstate Beverage Co., 821 F.Supp.2d 1274, 1283 (M.D. Ala. 2011); Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1246-47 (M.D. Fla. 2010) ("If presented in an FLSA action with a notice of settlement, a stipulation for dismissal, an offer of judgment, or the like, the judicial approval required by Lynn's Food and the public's right of access to a judicial proceeding compel the parties to file their agreement in the public docket of the district court."); Stalnaker V. Novar Corp., 293 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1263-64 (M.D. Ala. 2003) ("Absent some compelling reason, the sealing from public scrutiny of FLSA agreements between employees and employers would thwart the public's independent interest in assuring that employees' wages are fair and thus do not endanger `the national health and well-being.'" (quoting Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 708 (1945))). Instead, the parties elected to pursue the unacceptable route of providing a copy to this Court via email. Because the Court fails to find any compelling reason for confidentiality in this case, the parties must file a copy of any proposed settlement agreement on this Court's public docket.

Additionally, the lack of information contained in the settlement agreement precludes this Court from accepting the parties' stipulated dismissal. The parties' agreement provides no information concerning the amount of settlement proceeds attributable to Plaintiffs' decision to compromise the FLSA claim, or portion of the settlement to be paid as attorney's fees. Rather, the agreement provides only that Plaintiffs will receive $3,500 as consideration for releasing any and all claims against Defendant BOE, and that the parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees and costs. Absent any specifics, the Court is unable to determine whether the settlement agreement fairly and reasonably compromises the FLSA claim. See Nichols v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2013 WL 5933991, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2013) (noting that lack of germane details, including liquidated damages, prevents approval of proposed settlement); see also Dees, 706 F. Supp. 2d at 1243 ("The district court must `review . . . the reasonableness of counsel's legal fees 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.'" (quoting Silva v. Miller, 307 F. App'x 349, 351 (11th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original))

Lastly, the settlement agreement is unacceptable due to the broad scope of its waiver provision. As noted above, the agreement provides that Plaintiffs will

Plaintiffs will also "release, settle and extinguish forever all claims which were asserted or which could have been asserted, whether known or unknown, accrued or unaccrued as of the date of this Release in that certain lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division." The inclusion of pervasive releases in FLSA settlements have been generally rejected by courts because they "introduce[] a troubling imponderable into the calculus of fairness and full compensation." Moreno, 729 F. Supp. 2d at 1351; accord Nichols, 2013 WL 5933991, at *2-*3; Dees, 706 F. Supp. 2d at 1243 ("The district court should reject a compromise that includes a prospective waiver, approval of which would `nullify the purposes of the [FLSA].'" (quoting Brooklyn Sav. Bank, 324 U.S. at 705-08) (alteration in original)). Given the inclusion of the pervasive waiver provisions, the Court is unable to approve the parties' settlement agreement.

For the foregoing reasons, the parties' settlement agreement is REJECTED and their request that this case be dismissed is DENIED.1 The Court shall provide the parties with another opportunity to settle their dispute. Accordingly, the parties shall have thirty days from the date of this order to file, on the record, a new settlement agreement with respect to Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant BOE. The Court strongly encourages the parties to review existing court decisions regarding settlement of FLSA claims prior to submitting a new settlement agreement for this Court's approval.

SO ORDERED.