IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION JOHSUA ISONHART, ) Plaintiff, ) Vv. ) Civil Action No.: 4:23-CV-010 STEP ONE AUTOMOTIVE CSS, ) LLC; and STEP ONE ) AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, ) Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice in

a case asserting a retaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The parties have informed the Court that they have settled this case pursuant to a confidential settlement and mutual release agreement. □

Pursuant to Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States,

, 1350 .

(11th Cir. 1982), and

(c), a court must scrutinize the proposed settlement of a plaintiff's wage and overtime claims under §§ 206 or 207 of the FLSA for fairness. However, settlement of retaliation claims under the FLSA are not handled in the same manner. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Iron Container, LLC, No. 13-22170-CIV,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2014) (“omission of any Page 1 of 4

reference to supervision of FLSA retaliatory discharge claims in § 216(c) (while specifically referencing FLSA wage claims) supports the conclusion that no supervision of FLSA retaliatory discharge claims is required.”); Romeo v. Colonial Imports, Ltd., No: 6:16- CV-876-ORL-40,

(M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2016) (footnote 1) (“Plaintiffs also alleged claims against Defendants for retaliation under the FLSA and unpaid wages under Florida statutory law.... The parties settled those claims and dismissed them, as they do not require court approval for settlement.’’) (citations omitted), report and recommendation adopted,

(M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2017); Thompson v. Dealer Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 6:16- CV-1468-ORL-40,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2016) (court need

not approve a settlement involving a FLSA retaliation claim, among other claims), report and recommendation adopted,

(M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2017). Courts within the Eleventh Circuit have held that a court is not required to review the parties’ settlement of a plaintiff's FLSA retaliation claim, provided its

terms do not serve to contaminate the agreement as to the FLSA wage claim. See Kelly v. Aspire Physical Recovery at Hoover, LLC, No.: 2:17-CV-00961,

186961, at *2 (N .D. Ala. June 28, 2018) (concluding that the court need not review the FLSA retaliation claim and finding that “courts in this Circuit have generally concluded that an FSLA retaliatory discharge claim is not subject to the same review

unless its terms contaminate any associated wage claim”); Jemley v. Umbwa, Inc., No. 615CV801ORL41TBS,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2017) (“Settlement of FLSA retaliation claims (or of non-FLSA claims, for that matter) need not be approved by the district court, ‘provided its terms do not serve to contaminate the Agreement as to the FLSA claim.’ ”), report and recommendation adopted,

(M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2017); Yost v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., No. 6:10-CV-1583-ORL-36,

, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 2012) (parties represented to court that they settled plaintiffs state claim and FLSA retaliation claim in a separate settlement agreement), report and recommendation adopted,

(M.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2012). . In this case, there is no concern for contamination of any underlying wage/overtime claims. The parties have certified that the settlement is in regard to damages and attorneys’ fees and costs related only to the FLSA retaliation claim (and not minimum wage payments; overtime, or liquidated damages related to wage payments); that the FLSA wage claim in Count 1 lacked legal sufficiency; and that Plaintiff was properly compensated for services rendered to Defendants. Therefore, after careful consideration of this Motion, the Court finds that it need not scrutinize the settlement of Plaintiff’s FLSA retaliation claim. Kelly,

, at *2; Hernandez,

, at *2; Yost,

, at *3.

Accordingly, the motion, dkt. no. 48, is GRANTED, and this case is

DISMISSED with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and

costs. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and close this

case. SO ORDERED this \3_ day of November, 2023.

HO ISA GODBEY 7 FJDGE | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Prepared by: Charles Herman Charles Herman Law 2 East Bryan Street, 4" Floor Savannah, Georgia 31401 (912) 244-3999 [email protected]