Almanza v. United States
13-130
| Fed. Cl. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- 290 CBP officers and agents sued the United States seeking overtime/back pay for time spent studying while attending a Detection Canine Instructor Course, pleading COPRA and, alternatively, the FLSA.
- After ADR, the parties reached a settlement in February 2017 for $1,716,000 resolving COPRA and FLSA back-pay and liquidated damages claims; plaintiffs reserved the right to seek attorneys’ fees.
- Plaintiffs moved the Court to approve the FLSA settlement and to enforce a stipulation; they also moved for attorneys’ fees of about $3.0 million. The government opposed both motions.
- The Government argued COPRA does not authorize fee awards, that plaintiffs are not "prevailing parties" under Buckhannon for Back Pay Act/FLSA fee recovery, and that no FLSA judgment was entered so FLSA fees are unavailable.
- The Court held that FLSA waivers/releases require court (or DOL) supervision and therefore review/approval of the settlement was required to make the FLSA release enforceable; the Court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable.
- The Court granted approval of the settlement but held the attorneys’ fees motion in abeyance and directed limited supplemental briefing from the government and plaintiffs on prevailing-party and judgment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial approval is required for a settlement releasing FLSA claims against the United States | Almanza: court approval is required to render FLSA releases valid/enforceable | U.S.: no court approval required; DOJ-negotiated settlements or COPRA reimbursement control; earlier proceedings indicated court need not approve | Court: court review/approval is required for FLSA releases (absent DOL supervision); approved settlement as reasonable |
| Whether plaintiffs are "prevailing parties" for fee recovery under Back Pay Act / FLSA | Plaintiffs: reserved right to seek fees under FLSA/Back Pay Act/COPRA; approval of settlement supports fee claim | U.S.: per Buckhannon, plaintiffs did not obtain a judicially-sanctioned change; voluntary settlement does not make them prevailing parties | Court: directed supplemental briefing on whether approval changes prevailing-party / judgment analysis (fee issue held in abeyance) |
| Whether COPRA (or federal reimbursement scheme) precludes FLSA settlement-review or fee entitlement | Plaintiffs: sued alternatively under COPRA and FLSA and released both in settlement; settlement labels include liquidated damages (FLSA) | U.S.: COPRA governs backpay for Customs Officers; thus court approval is unnecessary and COPRA/DOJ practice obviates FLSA scrutiny | Court: rejected government’s COPRA-based argument as dispositive because plaintiffs asserted FLSA claims and the settlement released FLSA rights; Lynn’s rule applies to DOJ-negotiated settlements too |
| Whether the settlement is fair and reasonable | Plaintiffs: negotiated at arm’s length, ADR-assisted, bona fide dispute; settlement allocates backpay and liquidated damages | U.S.: challenged neither fairness substantially here (focused on approval/fee issues and rates) | Court: found bona fide dispute, arm’s-length negotiation, and that the settlement is a just and reasonable resolution; approved it |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrentine v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., 450 U.S. 728 (explaining FLSA protects workers and rights cannot be bargained away)
- Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (FLSA rights cannot be abridged by contract)
- Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir.) (FLSA private-action settlements require court scrutiny or DOL supervision)
- Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.) (Rule 41 dismissals settling FLSA claims require court or DOL approval)
- Copeland v. ABB, Inc., 521 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir.) (endorsing Lynn’s requirement of court/DOL approval)
- Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc., 493 F.3d 454 (4th Cir.) (same)
- Walton v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 786 F.2d 303 (7th Cir.) (same)
- McConnell v. Applied Performance Techs., Inc., 98 F. App’x 397 (6th Cir.) (applying Lynn’s principle)
- O’Connor v. United States, 308 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir.) (collective-bargaining/CSRA settlements are an exception to Lynn’s rule)
- Hohnke v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 170 (discussing non-recognition of unapproved DOJ–agency FLSA settlement)