Opinion
Case No: 6:16-cv-1991-Orl-41DCI
05-14-2018
JERMAINE MADISON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED SITE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Doc. 50) . United States Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51) , recommending that the motion be granted in part and denied in part.
After an independent de novo review of the record, and noting that no objections were timely filed, (see also generally Madison Notice of Non-Objection, Doc. 52), this Court agrees with the analysis in the Report and Recommendation. However, the Court clarifies that because there is consideration for the general releases and the waivers of future employment, which is separate from that being given in exchange for the settlement of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, (see Settlement Agreements, Doc. 50-1, at 4, 6-8, 9-10, 18, 20-22, 23-24, 32, 34-36, 37-38, 46, 48-50, 51-52, 60, 62-64, 65-66, 74, 76-78, 79-80, 88, 90-92, 93-94, 102, 104-06, 107-08), the Court expresses no opinion as to the enforceability of those provisions. See Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982) (requiring courts to determine whether a settlement "is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions." (emphasis added)); Shearer v. Estep Constr., Inc., No. 6:14-cv-1658-Orl-41GJK, 2015 WL 2402450, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2015) ("[T]he release of non-FLSA claims is generally not subject to judicial scrutiny.").
Additionally, to the extent that the Settlement Agreements purport to allow the parties to modify the Agreement, (see Doc. 50-1 at 11, 26, 39, 54, 68, 81, 96, 110), that language will be stricken, (see id. at 10, 24, 38, 52, 66, 80, 94, 108 (severability provisions)). Pursuant to Lynn's Food Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1355, any future modifications to the Settlement Agreements are unenforceable absent judicial approval.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.
2. The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Doc. 50) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3. To the extent that the Settlement Agreements purport to allow the parties to modify the Agreement, (see Doc. 50-1 at 11, 26, 39, 54, 68, 81, 96, 110), that language is STRICKEN.
4. Except as set forth above, the Settlement Agreements (Doc. 50-1) are APPROVED.
5. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
6. The Motion (Doc. 50) is DENIED in all other respects.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 14, 2018.
/s/_________
CARLOS E. MENDOZA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record