United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
opinion concerns four proposed FLSA settlements. In their
amended complaint, plaintiffs Jigar Patel, Palak Patel, Kanu
Patel, and Veena Patel contend that their former employers,
defendants Ashish Shah, Anthony Sharifi, Sharifi, Inc., and
Eat Fresh, Inc., violated provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et
seq. The plaintiffs have accepted offers of
judgment, and the parties have asked the Court to approve the
proposed resolution of this FLSA action. (Doc. 40). The Court
will approve the plaintiffs' acceptance of the offers of
judgment because the proposed judgments are fair and
reasonable compromises of a bona fide dispute.
defendants own and operate two Subway restaurants in
Huntsville, Alabama. (Doc. 14, ¶¶ 1, 12-14). The
plaintiffs worked for the defendants' restaurants as
non-exempt hourly employees. (Doc. 14, ¶¶ 5-8). The
plaintiffs made sandwiches, served customers, and engaged in
other non-exempt jobs. (Doc. 14, ¶¶ 5-8).
to the plaintiffs, on numerous occasions, the defendants
required them to work more than 40 hours in a given workweek
and refused to pay them overtime wages for those hours. (Doc.
14, ¶¶ 1, 25, 29-31). In their answer to the
plaintiffs' amended complaint, the defendants deny that
they failed to properly compensate the plaintiffs under the
FLSA. (Doc. 15, ¶¶ 5-8, 25, 29-31).
purposes of resolving this action, the parties reviewed the
defendants' payroll and time records for each plaintiff.
(Doc. 40, ¶¶ 7-8). The plaintiffs contend that the
records demonstrate that the defendants did not pay overtime
wages for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. (Doc.
40, ¶ 7). The defendants contend that the
plaintiffs' testimony, clock-in/clock-out reports,
payroll records, and other information produced during
discovery demonstrate that the plaintiffs are not eligible
for overtime under the FLSA because of the bona fide
executive exemption. (Doc. 40, ¶ 8). The defendants also
maintain that documents produced in discovery reveal that
some of the plaintiffs already have received full
compensation for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.
(Doc. 40, ¶ 8).
on their own records, the defendants' records, and the
plaintiffs' memories, plaintiffs Palak Patel, Veena
Patel, and Kanu Patel made settlement demands for $992.52,
$463.56, and $2, 574.26, respectively. (Doc. 40, ¶
The defendants then made, and the plaintiffs accepted, offers
of judgment in the following amounts:
• Jigar Patel ($500.00);
• Palak Patel ($1, 000.00);
• Veena Patel ($2, 000.00); and
• Kanu Patel ($3, 000.00).
(Doc. 40-1; Doc. 40-2; Doc. 40-3; Doc. 40-4). For plaintiffs
Jigar Patel, Palak Patel, and Kanu Patel, the proposed
judgments exceed their unpaid overtime wages without
accounting for liquidated damages. (Doc. 40, ¶ 10). For
plaintiff Veena Patel, the proposed judgment accounts for
both unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages. (Doc. 40,
¶ 10). The parties represent to the Court that they
believe that the offers of judgment reflect fair and
reasonable compromises of this FLSA dispute. (Doc. 40, ¶
record, the Court considers the parties' motion to
approve the proposed resolution of this action.