United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
C. IRICK UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral
argument on the following motion:
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. 50)
February 21, 2018
THEREON it is
RECOMMENDED that the motion be
GRANTED in part and DENIED
Madison (Plaintiff), on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals, filed this putative collective action
against Defendant alleging, among other things, that he and
other similarly situated employees were subject to a policy
whereby Defendant automatically deducted their lunch breaks
even though they often worked through those breaks. Doc. 1 at
¶¶ 8, 11-12. Plaintiff alleged that he and other
similarly situated employees often worked more than 40 hours
per week, and, thus, the time deducted by Defendant would be
considered unpaid overtime compensation. Id. at
¶ 8-12, 22. Therefore, Plaintiff asserted a single claim
for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 207. Id. at
4-5. Mike McLendon and Tardarius Taylor subsequently joined
this action as opt-in plaintiffs. Docs. 24; 25.
moved to conditionally certify this case as a collective
action. Doc. 32. The motion was unopposed. Id. The
Court granted the motion to the extent it requested
conditional certification, certifying the following class:
All service technicians and pick-up and delivery technicians
who 1) worked at Defendant's Orlando location . . . and
2) who claim they were not paid all overtime wages owed as a
result of Defendant's automatic deduction of time for
lunch breaks during which they worked.
Doc. 35 at 1-2. The Court also appointed Plaintiff as the
class representative. Id. at 2. Keith Jacobs, Darius
Washington, Robert Thames, Anthony Felton, and Robert Kohn
joined this action prior to the close of the opt-in period.
Docs. 38; 39; 40; 42; 43.
parties settled the case prior to the close of discovery.
Doc. 48. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the opt-in
plaintiffs, filed a Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
and Dismissal with Prejudice (Motion), as well as settlement
agreements (collectively, Agreements) between each plaintiff
and Defendant (Doc. 50-1). Doc. 50. The parties argue that
the Agreements constitute a fair and reasonable resolution of
Plaintiff's and the opt-in plaintiffs' (collectively,
Plaintiffs) respective FLSA claims and request that the Court
grant the Motion, dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and
retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement.
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.
Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of
Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir.
1982). The Court, before giving its approval,
must scrutinize the settlement agreement to determine whether
it is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute
of a plaintiff s FLSA claims. See id at 1353-55. In
doing so, the Court should consider the following
• The existence of collusion behind the settlement.
• The complexity, expense, and likely duration of the