Based upon this representation, the parties' no-rehire clause does not invalidate their settlement agreement. See Owens v. SSRMI, LLC, 2017 WL 2190646, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (noting that courts have approved settlement agreements which include waivers of future employment where such waivers were “inconsequential”), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 2172098 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017); Cruz v. Winter Garden Realty, LLC, 2013 WL 4774617, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2013) (finding the waiver of the right to future employment to be fair where the plaintiff disclaimed any desire to seek re-employment with the defendant) (citation omitted).
See, e.g., Owens v. SSRMI, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-15-Oc-PGB-PRL, 2017 WL 2190646, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 2172089 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017) (severing no reemployment provision where the parties provided no explanation for the provision nor separate consideration).
(Doc. 89.) This leads me to conclude that the separate consideration is adequate. See Owens v. SSRMI, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-15-Oc-PGB-PRL, 2017 WL 2190646, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Owens v. SSRM1, LLC, 2017 WL 2172089 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017) (explaining that in order for a court to make an informed determination as to whether a general release affects the fairness and reasonableness of a settlement, an explanation regarding any other claims that a plaintiff is knowingly releasing and identification of any additional consideration given in exchange must be discussed). Therefore, I conclude that the Release does not “undermine the public policies embodied in the FLSA and other labor and employment laws.” Wilburn v. Paradise Lawns and Landscaping, Inc. et al, 6:14-cv-1557-Orl-37TBS, 2015 WL 13793352, at *3 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2015) (citing Dees, 706 F.Supp.2d at 1242), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:14-cv-1557-Orl-37TBS, 2015 WL 13793264 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2015)
“And courts in this District have also approved FLSA settlements with accompanying broad releases even where the plaintiff did not receive full compensation for his or her FLSA claim, as long as additional valuable compensation was paid to the plaintiff in exchange for the broad general release.” Owens v. SSRMI, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-15-Oc-PGB-PRL, 2017 WL 2190646, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Owens v. SSRM1, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-15-Oc-40PRL, 2017 WL 2172089 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017).
I find that the separate consideration is adequate. See Owens v. SSRMI, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-15-Oc-PGB-PRL, 2017 WL 2190646, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 2172089 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017) (noting “courts in this District have also approved FLSA settlements with accompanying broad releases even where the plaintiff did not receive full compensation for his or her FLSA claim, as long as additional valuable compensation was paid to the plaintiff in exchange for the broad general release.”); Wilburn, 6:14-cv-1557-Orl-37TBS, Doc
This leads me to conclude that the separate consideration is adequate. See Owens v. SSRMI, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-15-Oc-PGB-PRL, 2017 WL 2190646, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Owens v. SSRM1, LLC, 2017 WL 2172089 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017) (explaining that in order for a court to make an informed determination as to whether a general release affects the fairness and reasonableness of a settlement, an explanation regarding any other claims that a plaintiff is knowingly releasing and identification of any additional consideration given in exchange must be discussed). Therefore, I conclude that the Release does not “undermine the public policies embodied in the FLSA and other labor and employment laws.”
This leads me to conclude that the separate consideration is adequate. See Owens v. SSRMI, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-15-Oc-PGB-PRL, 2017 WL 2190646, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Owens v. SSRM1, LLC, 2017 WL 2172089 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017) (explaining that in order for a court to make an informed determination as to whether a general release affects the fairness and reasonableness of a settlement, an explanation regarding any other claims that a plaintiff is knowingly releasing and identification of any additional consideration given in exchange must be discussed).
This leads me to conclude that the separate consideration is adequate. See Owens v. SSRMI, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-15-Oc-PGB-PRL, 2017 WL 2190646, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Owens v. SSRM1, LLC, 2017 WL 2172089 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017) (explaining that in order for a court to make an informed determination as to whether a general release affects the fairness and reasonableness of a settlement, an explanation regarding any other claims that a plaintiff is knowingly releasing and identification of any additional consideration given in exchange must be discussed).
No-rehire provisions are generally disfavored and viewed as punishing the plaintiff for exercising his or her rights under the FLSA. See, e.g., Owens v. SSRMI, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-15-Oc-PGB-PRL, 2017 WL 2190646, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 2172089 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017). In some cases, such provisions are approved when the inclusion of the provision is inconsequential, or separate consideration is paid for the provision.