Case 2:13-cv-02084-JPM-tmp Document 17 Filed 06/04/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 43
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EARL L. CRAWFORD, JR.,
IMPERIAL GUARD AND DETECTIVE
SERVICES, INC., d/b/a IMPERIAL
SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR COURT
Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal
with Prejudice, which was filed on June 3, 2013. (See ECF
No. 16.) In the Stipulation, the parties state that the terms
of their settlement “have been codified in a Settlement
Agreement and General Release dated May 21, 2013 ([the]
‘Settlement Agreement’).” (Id. at 1.) The parties further
state that, “[i]n accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement[,] the parties hereby file this Stipulation of
Dismissal with Prejudice and request that this Court dismiss
this case with prejudice, in its entirety, from the docket, with
each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.” (Id.)
The parties seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, which
include claims for relief made pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (the “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2006). (See
Case 2:13-cv-02084-JPM-tmp Document 17 Filed 06/04/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 44
“[The Supreme Court’s] decisions interpreting the FLSA have
Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 1.) For example, Plaintiff claims that
Defendant violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of
the FLSA (see id. ¶ 21(a)), which entitles Plaintiff to unpaid
wages and liquidated damages (see id. ¶¶ 24-25 (citing 29 U.S.C.
frequently emphasized the nonwaivable nature of an individual
employee’s right to a minimum wage and to overtime pay under the
Act.” Barrentine v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728,
740 (1981). Furthermore, “[t]he [Supreme] Court, influenced by
its perception of legislative intent, held that an employee
cannot privately waive his [FLSA] right to liquidated damages,
at least when no bona fide dispute exists between the parties
regarding the FLSA’s coverage.” Runyan v. Nat’l Cash Register
Corp., 787 F.2d 1039, 1042 (6th Cir. 1986) (citing and quoting
Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706-07 (1945)).
“Thus, [the Supreme Court has] held that FLSA rights cannot be
abridged by contract or otherwise waived because this would
‘nullify the purposes’ of the statute and thwart the legislative
policies it was designed to effectuate.” Barrentine, 450 U.S.
at 740 (quoting O’Neil, 324 U.S. at 707).
non-waivable and may not be settled without supervision of
either the Secretary of Labor or a district court.” Gentrup v.
“As a general rule, employees’ claims under the FLSA are
Case 2:13-cv-02084-JPM-tmp Document 17 Filed 06/04/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 45
Renovo Servs., LLC, No. 1:07CV430, 2011 WL 2532922, at *2 (S.D.
Ohio June 24, 2011) (citing Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United
States ex rel. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th
Cir. 1982)); accord Lewis v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 789 F. Supp.
2d 863, 869 (S.D. Ohio 2011). “The proper procedure for
obtaining court approval of the settlement of FLSA claims is for
the parties to present to the court a proposed settlement, upon
which the district court may enter a stipulated judgment only
after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Gentrup, 2011
WL 2532922, at *2 (citing Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at
1353); accord Landsberg v. Acton Enters., Inc., No. C2-05-500,
2008 WL 2468868, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ohio June 16, 2008).
ECF No. 1, ¶ 1), the Court must scrutinize the Settlement
Agreement for fairness. See Gentrup, 2011 WL 2532922, at *2.
As a result, the parties are hereby DIRECTED to file, within
seven (7) days of the entry of this Order, the following
Because Plaintiff’s makes claims based on the FLSA (Compl.,
Case 2:13-cv-02084-JPM-tmp Document 17 Filed 06/04/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 46
(1) the Settlement Agreement; and
(2) a document explaining why the terms of the Settlement
Agreement are fair in light of Plaintiff’s FLSA
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of June, 2013.
/s/ Jon P. McCalla
JON P. McCALLA
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE