United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
R. LAMMENS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
referral, this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's agreed
motion for approval of the settlement agreement. (Doc. 40).
Defendants concur in the request for settlement approval.
(Doc. 41). Thus, the Court must determine whether the
settlement between the parties is a “fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” over Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) issues. See
Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d
1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1982).
settlement is not one supervised by the Department of Labor,
the only other route for compromise of FLSA claims is
provided in the context of suits brought directly by
employees against their employer under section 216(b) to
recover back wages for FLSA violations. “When employees
bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, and
present to the district court a proposed settlement, the
district court may enter a stipulated judgment after
scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Id.
at 1353 (citing Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S.
108, 66 S.Ct. 925, 928 n.8, 90 L.Ed. 1114).
Eleventh Circuit has held that “[s]ettlements may be
permissible in the context of a suit brought by employees
under the FLSA for back wages because initiation of the
action by the employees provides some assurance of an
adversarial context.” Id. at 1354. In
The employees are likely to be represented by an attorney who
can protect their rights under the statute. Thus, when the
parties submit a settlement to the court for approval, the
settlement is more likely to reflect a reasonable compromise
of disputed issues than a mere waiver of statutory rights
brought about by an employer's overreaching. If a
settlement in an employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable
compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation
of back wages that are actually in dispute; we allow the
district court to approve the settlement in order to promote
the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.
October 16, 2017, the parties participated in a mediation
conference before the undersigned and reached a settlement
agreement. As set forth in the parties' settlement
agreement (Doc. 40-1), Defendant will pay a total sum of $3,
250 to resolve this matter, to include the following: (1) $1,
250 to Plaintiff in wages, and (2) $2, 000 to Plaintiff's
counsel for attorney's fees and costs. The parties were
represented by experienced counsel and both the terms and
conditions of the parties' settlement were the subject of
arms-length negotiations between counsel. The parties'
settlement agreement pertains only to Plaintiff's wage
claims, regarding which there were numerous legal and factual
disputes. The parties have determined that it is in their
respective best interest to conclude the dispute and issues
alleged by a fair, full and complete payment and satisfaction
of the claims of Plaintiff, without continuing this lawsuit.
The parties agree that that the settlement is fair and
respect to the agreed-to sum for attorney's fee and
costs, the parties represent that they were negotiated
separately from Plaintiffs recovery. See Bonetti v.
Embarq Mgmt.Co., Case No.: 6:07-cv-1335, 2009 WL 2371407
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2009). Under the circumstances, I submit
that the amount of $2, 000 for attorney's fees and costs
appears to be reasonable.
I RECOMMEND that the Court
GRANT the Plaintiffs agreed motion for
approval of the settlement agreement (Doc. 40), as it is a
fair and reasonable compromise of Plaintiffs FLSA claim. In
accordance with the terms of the parties' settlement
agreement, it is recommended that Plaintiff Brian
Winston's claims be dismissed with prejudice and the
claims of the opt-in Plaintiff be dismissed without