Candace Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc.
2013 WL 3871011, 20 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1760, 723 F.3d 1304 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims, including those by former employees, are only valid if supervised by the Secretary of Labor or if a district court enters a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness, which requires mutual agreement from the parties at the time of judicial approval.
Facts:
- Candace Nall worked for Mal-Motels, owned by Mohammad Malik, initially from 2005-2006, and then returned in August 2008 as a front desk clerk and night auditor.
- In December 2008, Malik instructed Nall to stop using a time clock and stated he would pay her a 'salary' of $8.75 per hour, requiring her to verbally report her hours.
- Nall claims she periodically worked more than forty hours per week but was not paid one and one-half times her regular hourly wage for that overtime work, in violation of the FLSA.
- Nall quit her job at Mal-Motels in February 2010 because she was not being paid for her overtime.
- In May 2010, Malik contacted Nall about settling her lawsuit and requested that she not bring her attorney to their meeting at the motel.
- At the meeting, Malik told Nall she was 'ruining his business' and offered her a check for $1,000 (and possibly additional cash) to sign two documents and dismiss her lawsuit.
- Malik did not allow Nall to read the documents he presented, but he explained them to her, and Nall signed them because she felt pressured and, being homeless at the time, needed money.
- The documents Nall signed were a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of her complaint and a letter to her attorney informing him the case had been settled.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 29, 2010, Candace Nall, through her attorney, filed a lawsuit against Mohammad Malik and Mal-Motels in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claiming a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- On April 28, 2010, Malik filed an answer for himself and Mal-Motels without the assistance of an attorney.
- The district court struck Malik's answer for Mal-Motels and entered a default against Mal-Motels because Malik, as a non-lawyer, could not represent the corporation.
- On June 2, 2010, the voluntary dismissal document Nall had signed with Malik was filed in district court.
- On June 8, 2010, the district court, on its own motion, ordered that Nall's pro se voluntary dismissal with prejudice had no effect, and the complaint remained pending because it was filed by an attorney and she had not received permission to appear without that attorney.
- Malik subsequently hired a lawyer, who filed a motion to set aside the default as to Mal-Motels, which the district court granted.
- Malik's attorney also filed a 'motion to enforce the settlement agreement.'
- A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to enforce the settlement agreement.
- The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the district court approve the settlement and dismiss the case with prejudice, finding it 'a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA.'
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, overruled Nall’s objections to it, and dismissed her complaint with prejudice.
- Nall appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit as the plaintiff-appellant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private out-of-court settlement of a former employee's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime claim, which is subsequently opposed by the employee in court, constitute a valid 'stipulated judgment' requiring judicial approval under Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States?
Opinions:
Majority - Carnes, Circuit Judge
No, a private out-of-court settlement of a former employee's FLSA overtime claim, which the employee later objects to in court, does not constitute a valid 'stipulated judgment' requiring judicial approval under Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States. The Eleventh Circuit extended the rule from Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, which mandates that FLSA back wage claims can only be settled through two exclusive methods: supervision by the Secretary of Labor or a district court's entry of a 'stipulated judgment' after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. The court reasoned that these limitations, rooted in the Supreme Court's Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil decision, apply equally to settlements with former employees. The public policy justifications behind the FLSA—to protect vulnerable employees from substandard wages and excessive hours, and to ensure the deterrent effect of liquidated damages—remain critical regardless of the employee's current employment status. Allowing private, unapproved settlements would undermine Congressional intent to protect employees and address inherent power imbalances. The court emphasized that a 'stipulated judgment' requires mutual agreement, and since Nall's attorney objected to the settlement in court, the judgment approving it was not 'stipulated.' Judicial scrutiny is vital to ensure fairness and prevent employers from taking advantage of employees, especially when those employees are unrepresented during negotiations, as Nall was.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of Lynn's Food by explicitly extending its judicial approval requirements for FLSA settlements to former employees. It reinforces the protective nature of the FLSA, emphasizing that its public policy goals of preventing wage abuse and ensuring fair compensation supersede private settlement attempts not subject to government or judicial oversight. This ruling limits employers' ability to settle FLSA claims directly with employees, current or former, without legal or judicial review, thereby protecting employees who may be in a vulnerable bargaining position even after leaving employment. It serves as a reminder that courts will closely guard employees' statutory rights under the FLSA, requiring formal processes for any waiver of these rights.
