United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
HONORABLE LEDA DUNN WETTRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
THIS
MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiffs motion
for final settlement approval. ECF No. 11. The parties have
consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. ECF No. 14. For
the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs motion is
GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff
brought this action in October 2018 alleging that defendant
failed to pay him overtime wages for his time worked in
excess of forty hours per week, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201,
et seq. ("FLSA"), and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:1 l-56(a), et seq. See
Complaint, ECF No. 1. Defendant filed an Answer in February
2019, disputing the allegations and denying liability. ECF
No. 5. The parties then notified the Court on February 25,
2019 that a settlement had been reached and submitted the
instant motion for final settlement approval on March 7,
2019. ECF No. 11. The Court held a telephone conference on
April 24, 2019 to discuss the scope of the release of claims
in the proposed settlement. The parties submitted an
Amendment to the settlement agreement on May 7, 2019 stating
that the parties have agreed to settle this action for $4,
000 in consideration for plaintiffs overtime claims and $1,
000 in consideration for a full waiver and release of any and
all other claims. ECF No. 16.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Congress
enacted the FLSA for the purpose of protecting "all
covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working
hours." Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight
Sys., 450 U.S. 728, 739 (1981). The FLSA recognizes that
"due to the unequal bargaining power as between employer
and employee, certain segments of the population required
federal compulsory legislation to prevent private contracts
on their part which endangered national health and efficiency
and as a result the free movement of goods in interstate
commerce." Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O 'Neil,
324 U.S. 697, 706-07 (1945).
To
approve an FLSA settlement agreement in the Third Circuit,
the Court must determine that, "the compromise reached
Ms a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute
over FLSA provisions.'" Brumley v. Camin Cargo
Control, Inc., Civ. No. 08-1798 (JLL), 2012 WL 1019337,
at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2012) (quoting Lynn's Food
Stores. Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th
Cir. 1982). In determining whether the compromise resolves a
bona fide dispute, the Court must find that the settlement
"reflect[s] a reasonable compromise of disputed issues
[rather] than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about
by an employer's overreaching," and the bona fide
dispute must be determined to be one over "factual
issues" not "legal issues such as the statute's
coverage or applicability." Id. (citations
omitted).
A.
"Bona fide" Dispute
Here,
the settlement resolves a bona fide dispute over whether
Plaintiff was exempt from the overtime requirements of the
FLSA, the number of hours Plaintiff actually worked, whether
Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in any work week, and
whether the parties properly recorded Plaintiffs hours. These
factual disputes required the case to be litigated by both
parties.
B. Fair
and Reasonable Resolution
Next,
the Court considers whether the resolution is "fair and
reasonable." Brumley, 2012 WL 1019337, at *2.
In this case, defendant has agreed to pay plaintiff for his
claims of unpaid wages and attorney's fees and costs (as
set forth in die agreement), which represent his damages in
mis case. Counsel for the parties represent that the amount
of me settlement is proportionate to plaintiffs alleged
losses. In addition, the settlement agreement includes
consideration by defendant for plaintiffs waiver of all
claims. Defendant denies any violations of the FLSA or state
law and does not admit to any liability via this agreement.
Instead, the settlement agreement represents a negotiated
resolution of disputed facts. As a result, the resolution is
fair and reasonable.
The
proposed settlement agreement does not contain a
confidentiality provision and the terms of the settlement
agreement do not otherwise frustrate the purposes of the
FLSA. See Brumley, 2012 WL 1019337, at *6 (D.N.J.
2013).
III.
conclusion
Based
on the foregoing, the Court approves the Settlement Agreement
at ECF No. 11 and the Amendment to the Settlement Agreement
at ECF No. 16 and the motion at ECF No. 11 is GRANTED. The
parties shall proceed with the administration of the
settlement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. The entire case is dismissed with prejudice, with
...