1. Joint Motion to Approve the Parties' Proposed Settlement and Enter Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 34), filed July 1, 2014; and

2. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35), filed July 15, 2014.

The parties to this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case move for approval of their settlement agreement and for dismissal of this case with prejudice. (See Doc. 34, pp. 1, 6-7.) In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Magistrate Judge Smith recommends that the Court find that the settlement agreement (Doc. 34-2) is a "fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute" and grant the parties' motion. (See Doc. 35, pp. 2-8 (quoting Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982)).) No party has objected to the R&R. Upon consideration, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Smith's R&R and finds that the parties' motion is due to be granted.

The Court notes, however, that the parties to this case entered into a separate agreement in conjunction with the FLSA settlement, whereby Plaintiffs (Weldon and three other opt-in Plaintiffs) executed a general release and non-disparagement agreement in exchange for a sum of $100 each. (See Doc. 34-3.)

Ordinarily, a "'side deal' in which the employer extracts a gratuitous (although usually valueless) release of all claims in exchange for money unconditionally owed to the employee" is not permitted under the FLSA, as it potentially confers an "undeserved and disproportionate benefit on the employer and effects an unanticipated, devastating, and unfair deprivation on the employee." Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1351 (M.D. Fla. 2010). However, if a plaintiff is given compensation in addition to that which she is entitled under the FLSA, then general releases can be permissible. See, e.g., Caamal v. Shelter Mortg. Co., 6:13-cv-706-Orl-36KRS, 2013 WL 5421955, at *4 (M.D Fla. Sept. 26, 2013) (collecting cases).

Here, the parties represent that the $100 that Plaintiffs each received in consideration for their releases was wholly unrelated to the value of their FLSA claims, for which Plaintiffs are being fully compensated. (See Doc. 34, p. 5 n.1.) As nothing in the record indicates otherwise, the Court accepts the parties' representation and finds that the releases in this case are permissible on the record in this case. Counsel should be mindful that the Court intends to monitor similar agreements closely to ensure that they are not shams designed to extract impermissible concessions from FLSA plaintiffs.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35) is ADOPTED AND CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.
2. Joint Motion to Approve the Parties' Proposed Settlement and Enter Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.

3. The parties' settlement agreement (Doc. 34-2) is APPROVED.

4. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and to close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on September 4, 2014.

/s/_________

ROY B. DALTON JR.

United States District Judge
Copies: Counsel of Record

Summaries of

Weldon v. Backwoods Steakhouse, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Sep 4, 2014

Case No. 6:14-cv-79-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fla. Sep. 4, 2014)

approving settlement agreement with general release because plaintiffs received independent consideration for it

Summary of this case from Weber v. Paramount Transp. Logistics Servs., LLC

approving settlement agreement with general release because plaintiffs received independent consideration for it

Summary of this case from Lloyd Scott Holding v. AMS, Inc.

approving settlement agreement with general release because plaintiffs received independent consideration for it

Summary of this case from Weber v. Paramount Transp. Logistics Servs., LLC

approving a settlement agreement that contained a general release and non-disparagement agreement because they were exchanged by a separate payment in addition to the sum the employee would receive from the FLSA settlement

Summary of this case from Panem v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

Summary of this case from Teahl v. Lazy Flamingo, Inc.

Summary of this case from Sexton v. Macro

Summary of this case from Martini v. Bridgewater Inn of Matlacha, LLC

Summary of this case from Kennedy v. Simon's Lawn Care, Inc.

noting that general releases may be permissible if a plaintiff “is given compensation in addition to that which she is entitled under the FLSA”

Summary of this case from Gomez v. Hays Worldwide Studios, Inc.

noting that courts typically reject non-disparagement clauses in FLSA settlement agreements

Summary of this case from Barrera v. Home Paramount Pest Control Co.

noting that non-disparagement clauses are generally rejected in FLSA settlement agreements and citing authority

Summary of this case from Barbour v. Tillis Pest Control, Inc.

In Weldon, the court approved a settlement agreement that contained a general release and non-disparagement agreement because they were supported by independent consideration, in addition to the sum the plaintiff would receive from the FLSA settlement. Weldon, 2014 WL 4385593, at *4.

Summary of this case from Prada v. DCS Enters., Inc.

noting that non-disparagement clauses are generally rejected in FLSA settlement agreements and citing authority

Summary of this case from Lowery v. Auto Club Grp., Inc.

noting that non-disparagement clauses are generally rejected in FLSA settlement agreements and citing authority

Summary of this case from Krystkowiak v. Heron Fin. Partners, Inc.

noting that non-disparagement clauses are generally rejected in FLSA settlement agreements and citing authority

Summary of this case from Saunders v. Commercial Cos.

noting that non-disparagement clauses are generally rejected in FLSA settlement agreements and citing authority

Summary of this case from Ramos v. Acute Patient Care, Inc.

Summary of this case from Colacitti v. Alberto's Rest., LLC

Summary of this case from Meyer v. U.S. Installation Grp., Inc.

Summary of this case from Torelli v. Direct Heating & Cooling, Inc.