But We Cut a Settlement and They Agreed to It!?!

30 June 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

As we have previously noted, employers are increasingly resorting to arbitration agreements, waivers and releases  and other strategies in an attempt to limit liability in employment matters and reduce or eliminate the risk and cost of litigation. With the explosion of litigation being brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), employers may be similarly tempted to “cut deals” to eliminate and reduce the risk of an FLSA claim. Similarly, with increased attention being paid to raising the minimum wage as well as President Obama’s recent Executive Order instructing the Secretary of Labor to re-examine exemptions, employers may be tempted to cut corners by striking private deals with employees. However, the FLSA is a different animal and employers must understand that unlike most other employment laws, the ability to obtain valid waivers and releases are severely limited under this law.

Since as far back as 1945, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a dim view of employers’ private FLSA settlements. In the case of Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neill, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a waiver signed by two employees after the employer paid them for their claimed unpaid overtime wages. After signing a waiver and receiving the settlement amounts, the employees turned around and sued for liquidated damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to the FLSA. The employers argued that the signed waivers barred a lawsuit on the employees’ FLSA claims. The Court rejected the waiver’s provisions, stating that waivers of private rights guaranteed by FLSA contradicted public policy and were void.

How then can an employer ever settle an FLSA claim? A 1982 appellate court decision known as Lynn’s Food Stores, which has been followed by most federal courts addressing the issue, says that FLSA claims can be settled in only one of two ways: (1) through payment by the employer to employees – under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor – of back wages owed them as determined by the Secretary, or (2) by means of a stipulated judgment entered by a court after the court first makes a determination that the terms of the parties’ proposed settlement are fair. This means that when settling FLSA cases already in litigation, the judge must be presented the full terms of the settlement and must conclude that under all the circumstances the proposed settlement is fair and equitable.

But what if a dispute is not already in litigation? Most employers will be legitimately hesitant (to say the least) to pick up the phone and call in the U.S. Department of Labor to ask them to supervise the settlement they are working out with their current or former employee. There has been some movement in a handful of recent court decisions suggesting confidential private settlements of FLSA claims should be enforceable, but so far they seem to remain the exception, not the rule.  If you find yourself needing to settle pre-suit FLSA claims, you should seek advice from an attorney who is well versed in the nuances of the FLSA.

Many state laws are no more helpful in this area. By way of example, the Massachusetts Wage Act specifically states “No person shall by a special contract with an employee or by any other means exempt himself from this section.” Essentially this means you can never pay an employee anything less than what the law provides. An employer who discovers wage and hour violations and wants to resolve them before a lawsuit is filed has some options, but most of them are not without risk. When faced with such a dilemma, employers should seek competent legal advice and not try to fix things on their own.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ