Order | Filed: December 11, 2025
| Entered: December 11, 2025
Tefft v. Integritus Healthcare, Inc. f/k/a Berkshire Healthcare Systems, Inc
Labor: Fair Standards | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Settlement
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 28 Joint Motion of FLSA Collective Action and 34 Supplemental Motion for Settlement Approval of an FLSA Collective Action. Such approval is unnecessary here. The parties submit their settlement agreement for court approval because they assert that "[t]he Court has a duty to determine whether the proposed settlement 'is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.'" (Dkt. No. 28-1 at 17 (citing Curtis v. Scholarship Storage Inc., No. 2:14-CV-303-NT, 2016 WL 3072247, at *2 (D. Me. May 31, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)). But the parties also mention that a "growing number of federal courts are rejecting the need for court approval of private FLSA settlements in the context of contested litigation." (Dkt. No. 28-1 at 23) (citing to Anderson v. Team Prior, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00452-NT, 2022 WL 16531690, at *5 (D. Me. Oct. 28, 2022)).The question of whether judicial approval of an FLSA settlement agreement is required is unsettled among circuit courts. The First Circuit has not yet addressed whether judicial review of settlement agreements in FLSA cases is required. The Fifth Circuit has held that "parties may privately settle a FLSA claim... where there exists a bona fide dispute as to liability." Martin v. Spring Break '83 Prods., L.L.C., 688 F.3d 247, 257 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In contrast, the Second and Eleventh Circuits have held that judicial approval of certain FLSA settlements is required. Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding that the FLSA falls within an exception to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) which states that parties "may dismiss an action without a court order by filing... a stipulation of dismissal"); Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-1353 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding that "in the FLSA context, for an employee's waiver of his rights to unpaid wages and liquidated damages to be binding,... a court must approve it")); but see Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc., 944 F.3d 395, 398, 414 (2d Cir. 2019) (refusing to apply the Cheeks courts reasoning in determining that court approval is not mandatory before a plaintiff may accept an offer of judgement under Rule 68). District courts across the country are also divided. See e.g., Shelton v. Steam Logistics, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-393, 2025 WL 3173664, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2025) (collecting cases); laughter v. Sykes Enters., Inc., No. 17-CV-02038-KLM, 2019 WL 529512 (D. Colo. Feb. 11, 2019) (collecting cases); Evans v. Centurion Managed Care of Arizona LLC, 686 F. Supp. 3d 880 (D. Ariz. 2023); Gilstrap v. Sushinati LLC, 734 F. Supp. 3d 710, 713 (S.D. Ohio 2024). The court finds the reasoning of the district court in Slaughter, 2019 WL 529512 at *1-6, persuasive. First, the text of the FLSA does not require judicial approval of settlements. 29 U.S.C.A. § 216 (2025); Slaughter, 2019 WL 529512 at *8. Accordingly, "[a] court should not lightly assume that Congress has omitted from its adopted text requirements that it nonetheless intends to apply." Evans v. Centurion Managed Care of Arizona LLC, 686 F. Supp. 3d 880, 884 (D. Ariz. 2023) (quoting Alcantara v. Duran Landscaping, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-03947-JDW, 2022 WL 2703610, at *2 (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2022)) (disagreeing with Cheeks and finding that "policy cannot overcome the text of a statute" especially considering that when "Congress adopted the FLSA in 1938, it knew how to include provisions requiring approval of settlements but chose not to")); see also Mei Xing Yu, 944 F.3d at 414 (explaining that "Congress knows how to require judicial approval of settlements and dismissals when it wants to" and "[a]ppeals to the broad remedial goals and uniquely protective qualities of the FLSA do not authorize us to write a judicial approval requirement into the FLSA [as applied to Rule 68(a)])."Second, practical considerations weigh against court involvement in every settlement of an FLSA case. In many FLSA cases, the settlement amount and the liquidity of the defendant employer would make settlement economically unfeasible if the agreement required court approval because of the attendant costs in the form of attorney fees, extensive negotiations, and court appearances for a fairness hearing. See Picerni v. Bilingual Seit & Preschool, Inc., 925 F. Supp. 2d. 368, 376 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (noting that "the vast majority of FLSA cas... (truncated)