IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BASHIR ALI, : Civil No. 1:25-CV-00673 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURG : MEDICAL CENTER, et al., : : Defendants. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson MEMORANDUM

Before the court is a consent motion approving settlement and dismissing this action. (Doc. 36.) For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Bashir Ali (“Ali”) commenced this civil action on April 15, 2025, against Defendants University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (“UPMC”) and VeloSource LLC (“VeloSource”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201219 (“FLSA”), and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,

, et seq., for unpaid overtime wages. (Id.) Among other allegations, the complaint asserts that Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay an overtime premium for the hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. (Id.) On July 15, 2025, VeloSource filed a motion to dismiss and brief in support. (Docs. 21, 22.) The same day, VeloSource filed a stipulated motion to stay this action pending settlement negotiations. (Doc. 23.) The court granted this request on July 16, 2025. (Doc. 24.) The parties requested several additional stays of this action to

continue settlement negotiations, which the court granted. (Docs. 25–28, 32, 33.) On December 12, 2025, UPMC filed a consent motion approving settlement and dismissing this action, as well as the settlement agreement. (Doc. 36.) Under

the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed to settle this action and an action between the parties in Missouri for $95,000.00, which consists of $61,464.21 payable to Ali and $33,535.79 payable to Ali’s attorney. (Doc. 36-1.) In exchange for this payment, Ali has agreed to release Defendants from liability for any and all

claims. (Id.) STANDARD OF REVIEW The FLSA was enacted to “protect all covered workers from substandard

wages and oppressive working hours.” Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys.,

(1981). To safeguard employee rights, “a majority of courts have held that bona fide FLSA disputes may only be settled or compromised through payments made under the supervision of the Secretary of the Department

of Labor or by judicial approval of a proposed settlement in an FLSA lawsuit.” Bettger v. Crossmark, Inc., No. 13-cv-2030,

, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2015) (citing Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,

(11th Cir. 1982)). While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not addressed whether parties can settle FLSA suits for unpaid wages without court approval, “district courts within the Third Circuit have followed the majority

position and assumed that judicial approval is necessary.” Id.; see also McGee v. Ann’s Choice, No. 12-cv-2664,

(E.D. Pa. June 4, 2014); Owens v. Interstate Safety Serv., Inc., No. 17-cv-0017,

(M.D. Pa. Nov.

21, 2017). Following the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc., a proposed settlement agreement may satisfy judicial review if it is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.”

. A settlement agreement resolves a bona fide dispute if its terms “reflect a reasonable compromise over issues, such as . . . back wages, that are actually in dispute.”

If the court is satisfied that the settlement agreement resolves a bona

fide dispute, the court then determines whether the agreement is fair and reasonable to the plaintiff, and whether the settlement furthers or “impermissibly frustrates” the implementation of the FLSA. Bettger,

, at *4 (citing Altenbach v. Lube Ctr., No. 08-cv-2178,

(M.D. Pa. Jan. 4,

2013)). DISCUSSION The court first addresses whether the settlement agreement resolves a bona

fide dispute between the parties. If the agreement reflects a reasonable compromise of the issues in this suit, the court can approve the settlement “to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Lynn’s Food Stores,

Inc.,

. Here, the terms of the agreement itself, Doc. 36-1, as well as Ali’s complaint and VeloSource’s motion to dismiss, Docs. 1 & 21, demonstrate that a bona fide dispute exists regarding whether Ali was properly exempt under

the FLSA, whether Plaintiff worked any overtime, and whether UPMC was a joint employer of Ali with Velosource. (See also Doc. 36, p. 3.)1 As the court’s obligation is “not to act as a caretaker but as a gatekeeper,” the court is satisfied that the settlement agreement resolves a bona fide dispute between the parties. See

Joseph v. Caesar’s Entm’t Corp., No. 10-cv-6293,

, at *2 (D.N.J. July 23, 2012). Turning to the terms of the agreement itself, the court finds that the

settlement agreement is fair and reasonable to Ali. Ali has been represented by counsel who is well-versed in wage and hour litigation throughout this case. Settlement was reached following vigorous advocacy by counsel on behalf of their clients. (Doc. 36, p. 3–4.) Furthermore, a review of the agreement indicates that

Ali is being compensated for an amount that he reasonably claims is owed in connection with his employment. (See id.)

1 For ease of reference, the court uses the page number from the CM/ECF header. Lastly, the court finds that the settlement agreement does not impermissibly frustrate the implementation of the FLSA. The settlement agreement does not

contain a confidentiality clause and was publicly docketed in this case. (See Doc. 36-1.) “There is ‘broad consensus’ that FLSA settlement agreements should not be kept confidential.” Diclemente v. Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc., No. 15-CV-0596,

, at *4 (M.D. Pa. July 8, 2016.) CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the joint motion for approval of settlement will be granted. (Doc. 36.) An appropriate order follows.

s/Jennifer P. Wilson JENNIFER P. WILSON United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: December 15, 2025