Yanosik v. Amazulu Transport Inc.
2:17-cv-00385
M.D. Fla.Oct 3, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff David Yanosik sued Amazulu Transport, Inc. and Dale Senecal under the FLSA and then filed a notice of settlement before defendants were served.
- Court ordered additional information to determine whether the FLSA settlement was a fair and reasonable resolution under Lynn’s Food Stores.
- Plaintiff moved for settlement approval attaching a Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement reflecting a $12,000 total payment ($7,500 unpaid wages; $4,500 liquidated damages).
- The Agreement contains broad mutual releases (including present and future unknown claims), a mutual non‑disparagement clause, and a confidentiality provision prohibiting disclosure of the settlement terms.
- The magistrate judge concluded the record lacked sufficient information about consideration for the non‑cash concessions and found certain clauses inconsistent with FLSA policy and precedent.
- Recommendation: denial without prejudice and order to either amend the settlement to address defects or serve defendants by a set deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can approve the FLSA settlement given the broad mutual waiver/releases | Yanosik asserts the $12,000 payment resolves his FLSA claims (implicitly covers release) | Defendants agreed to settle (agreement executed) | Court refused to approve because there is inadequate information that the monetary consideration fairly supports release of all present and future unknown claims |
| Whether a mutual non‑disparagement clause is permissible in an FLSA settlement | Yanosik did not identify separate consideration for the non‑disparagement provision; treated as part of the $12,000 | Defendants insist on mutual restraint; likely argue reciprocity suffices | Court found non‑disparagement problematic absent separate consideration or clear reciprocal benefit and raised free speech and FLSA policy concerns; cannot approve without more information |
| Whether a confidentiality clause barring disclosure of settlement terms is permissible | Yanosik agreed to confidentiality but nonetheless filed the agreement on the public docket | Defendants sought confidentiality of settlement terms | Court held confidentiality provision contravenes FLSA policy and Department of Labor interests and thus is a basis to deny approval |
| Whether the settlement as a whole is a fair and reasonable resolution under Lynn’s Food Stores | Yanosik contends settlement resolves bona fide dispute | Defendants accept settlement terms | Court concluded it cannot determine fairness and reasonableness because of the release language, non‑disparagement, and confidentiality defects; recommended denial without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynn’s Food Stores v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir.) (establishes district‑court review standard for FLSA settlements)
- Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (M.D. Fla.) (discusses valuation problems for unknown claims in releases)
- Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (M.D. Fla.) (explains why confidentiality provisions in FLSA settlements may be unreasonable)