Case 1:15-cv-00156-LAG Document 106 Filed 03/02/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ALBANY DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-156 (LAG)
`CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-60 (LAG)
`
`v.
`
`WHITE OAK PASTURES, INC.,
`
`
`
`TRAVIS TAYLOR, on behalf of himself :
`and all others similarly situated,
`:
`
`:
`:
` :
` :
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`ORDER
`Before the Court are the Parties’ Renewed Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA
`
`Settlement (Motion) regarding two actions: Taylor v. White Oak Pastures, Inc. (Taylor),
`No. 1:15-cv-156 (M.D. Ga. 2015) and Allen, et al. v. White Oak Pastures, Inc. (Allen), No.
`1:20-cv-60 (M.D. Ga. 2020). Taylor, No. 1:15-cv-156 at (Doc. 103). For the reasons
`explained below, the Motion is GRANTED.
`BACKGROUND
`Plaintiff Travis Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
`initiated the Taylor action on September 23, 2015. Id. at (Doc. 1). During the period
`relevant to the Complaint, Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked in an abattoir on
`Defendant White Oak Pasture, Inc.’s farm—White Oak Pastures—where they slaughtered,
`cut, and grounded cattle into packaged meat for eventual shipment. (Id. ¶¶ 13–17.) Plaintiff
`Taylor alleged that Defendant willfully failed to pay him and those similarly situated
`overtime premiums in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201,
`et seq. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 27.) On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff Taylor filed a Motion for Conditional
`Certification of Collective Action and Issuance of Court-approved Notice in the Taylor
`action. Id. at (Doc. 17). The Court denied the motion for conditional certification on
`September 27, 2016. Id. at (Doc. 23). On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff Taylor filed a
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00156-LAG Document 106 Filed 03/02/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action and Issuance of Court-
`approved Notice. Id. at (Doc. 27). On April 20, 2017, the Court granted the motion to
`certify and conditionally certified a class of plaintiffs who:
`(1) are or were employed by Defendant White Oak Pastures,
`Inc. from April __ 2014 [three years prior to the mailing date
`of the notice] to April ___ 2017 [the mailing date]; (2) worked
`in the Red Meat Abattoir or in support of the Red Meat
`Abattoir, specifically on the kill floor, in the cut room, in the
`grinding room, in order fulfillment, or on the loading docks of
`the Red Meat Abattoir; (3) were paid an hourly rate; and (4)
`worked more than forty hours in a work week without being
`paid overtime compensation.
`Id. at (Doc. 30 at 8).1 Approximately forty employees filed opt-in notices to be part of the
`class. See id. at (Doc. 84 at 12). After the opt-in period ended on November 3, 2017,
`Plaintiff Taylor filed a Second Amended Complaint, listing Terry Barrows and Layton
`Ferrell Duke as named Plaintiffs. Id. at (Doc. 55).
`On February 14, 2019, Defendant filed motions for decertification and summary
`judgment. Id. at (Docs. 71, 77). Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
`that same day. Id. at (Doc. 72). On March 27, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s motion
`for decertification but denied both motions for summary judgment. Id. at (Doc. 97). On
`April 6, 2020, Plaintiff Paul Allen and several other Plaintiffs filed a separate Complaint
`against Defendant under the FLSA to recover proper overtime pay, initiating the Allen
`action. No. 1:20-cv-60 at (Doc. 1). All Allen Plaintiffs originally opted-into the class action
`initiated in Taylor, and the Allen Complaint is based on similar facts as the Taylor
`Complaint. See Taylor, No. 1:15-cv-156 at (Doc. 1); Allen, No. 1:20-cv-60 at (Doc. 1); see
`generally Taylor, No. 1:15-cv-156 at (Docket). There are thirty-four Plaintiffs total in the
`Taylor and Allen actions. Taylor, No. 1:15-cv-156 at (Doc. 103 at 6).
`On July 2, 2020, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay Proceeding in both actions
`so they could finalize a settlement. Allen, No. 1:20-cv-60 at (Doc. 7 ¶¶ 6–7); Taylor, No.
`
`
`For purposes of summary judgment, the Court construed the relevant employment period to be
`1
`from April 1, 2014 to April 1, 2017. Taylor, No. 1:15-cv-156 (Doc. 97 at 1 n.1).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00156-LAG Document 106 Filed 03/02/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`1:15-cv-156 at (Doc. 101 ¶¶ 7–8). The Court stayed both cases on October 16, 2020.
`Taylor, No. 1:15-cv-156 at (Doc. 102); Allen, No. 1:20-cv-60 at (Doc. 12). On November
`3, 2020, the Parties for both actions filed a Joint Motion for Consolidation and Approval
`of FLSA Settlement in Taylor. No. 1:15-cv-156 at (Doc. 103). On January 20, 2021, the
`Court consolidated the Allen and Taylor actions for purposes of the settlement but rejected
`the proposed settlement agreement because, while otherwise appropriate, the proposed
`agreement contained a pervasive release. (Doc. 104 at 4, 8.) The Court ordered the Parties
`to submit a revised proposed settlement agreement in full within twenty-one days. (Id. at
`9.) On February 5, 2021, the Parties filed the present Motion, including a revised proposed
`settlement agreement.2 (Doc. 105.) The Motion is ripe for review. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.
`DISCUSSION
`Before approving an FLSA settlement, the Court must review the proposed
`agreement to determine if it is “a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.”
`Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982); see also
`Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc., 723 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that the Lynn’s Food
`Stores requirement of judicial approval of proposed FLSA settlement agreements also
`applies to settlements between former employees and employers). If the settlement reflects
`a reasonable compromise over issues that are actually in dispute, the Court may approve
`the settlement “in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.”
`Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354. Because the Court previously found that there was
`a bona fide dispute and that the proposed financial settlement represented a fair and
`reasonable compromise of Plaintiffs’ claims, it only reviews whether the Parties’ proposed
`release represents a fair and reasonable compromise.
`“[A]n employer is not entitled to use a FLSA claim . . . to leverage a release from
`liability unconnected to the FLSA.” Webb v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 5:11-CV-106
`(CAR), 2011 WL 6743284, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 2011) (quoting Moreno v. Regions
`
`
`The Court previously considered—and approved as fair and reasonable—the Parties’ proposed
`2
`attorney’s fees. (Doc. 104 at 8–9.) As those terms have not changed, the Court need not consider them in
`the instant Motion.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00156-LAG Document 106 Filed 03/02/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`Bank, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1351 (M.D. Fla. 2010)). Such blanket releases are disfavored
`because plaintiffs must essentially release innumerable claims of unknown value for a
`settlement of a single FLSA claim. In its prior motion, the Parties’ release provision was
`impermissibly broad, requiring Plaintiffs to release undefined claims unrelated to the
`instant FLSA action. (See Doc. 103-1 ¶¶ 11–12; Doc. 104 at 8.) The Parties have since
`narrowed the scope of the release provision to FLSA claims relating to wages or overtime
`hours that could have been brought at the time of the execution of the Limited Release.
`(Doc. 105 at 3; Doc. 105-1 ¶¶ 20–21.) Specifically, Plaintiffs release only claims
`from all manner of actions or causes of actions, suits,
`proceedings (whether civil, administrative or otherwise), debts,
`sums of money, accounts, controversies, damages, judgments,
`executions, liabilities, claims, demands, costs or expenses
`pertaining to the payment of wages or overtime wages which
`were, could have been, or could be brought under the Fair
`Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) as of the date of execution of
`this Limited Release. Based on this Agreement, Plaintiffs
`expressly release any claims they have or may have under the
`FLSA.
`(Doc. 105-1 at 24.) The scope of this proposed release provision is reasonable.
`Accordingly, the Amended Settlement Agreement is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a
`bona fide dispute . . . .” Webb, 2011 WL 6743284, at *3.
`CONCLUSION
`In light of the foregoing, the Parties’ Motion, Taylor, No. 1:15-cv-156 at (Doc. 105),
`
`is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
`
`
`SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of March, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Leslie A. Gardner
`LESLIE A. GARDNER, JUDGE
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`4
`
`