Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 60 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes federal courts sitting in Texas, recently held that a generic, broad state court settlement release did not bar two former employees' subsequent unpaid overtime compensation claims against their former employer, even though the parties discussed the topic of unpaid wages during settlement negotiations and the release specifically included all claims arising from the former employees' employments with their former employer.
This case actually involves two lawsuits between the employees and their former employer. In the first lawsuit - filed by the employer in Texas state court - the employer sued the employees for breaching their non-competition agreements. Several months later, the employees and the employer entered into a settlement agreement wherein the employees released the employer from "all claims and causes of action related to or in any way arising from [the employees'] employment[s] with [the employer], whether based in … any federal, state or local law, statute or regulation."
That same day, the employees filed a Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) lawsuit against the employer in federal district court, alleging the employer failed to compensate them for overtime work as required by Section 207 of the FLSA. The employer sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the settlement agreements signed by the employees in connection with the state court lawsuit were valid and enforceable waivers of the employees' FLSA claims.
The district court agreed with the employer because, among other reasons, the topic of unpaid wages for the employees' commissions and salaries arose during the negotiations of the settlement agreement, yet the employees did not say anything about the amount they were entitled to under the FLSA. Therefore, the district court concluded the employees were aware of their FLSA claim and chose to release them by signing the settlement agreement.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's opinion, recognizing that, while an exception exists to the general rule that FLSA claims cannot be waived, that exception did not apply to this lawsuit. The exception is set forth Martin v. Spring Break '83 Productions, L.L.C., 688 F.3d 247 (5th Cir. 2012). In Martin, the court concluded that an unsupervised settlement that was reached due to a bona fide FLSA dispute over hours worked or compensation owed constituted a valid FLSA waiver.
The Fifth Circuit, however, did not find the Martin exception applicable to the instant lawsuit because the prior state court lawsuit did not involve the FLSA (i.e., it was a non-compete lawsuit) and the parties did not - before signing the settlement agreement - negotiate the amount of overtime pay that the employer owed the employees. For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the state court settlement agreement was not reached due to a bona fide FLSA dispute. Therefore, the state court settlement agreement did not constitute a valid and enforceable FLSA waiver.
The practical effect of this case is that generic, all-encompassing employment releases will not likely be enforceable against FLSA claims, unless there is a bona-fide dispute about a claim for wages under the FLSA and the parties specifically negotiate the amounts due, if any, under the FLSA. In addition, to make certain FLSA claims have actually been released, the parties should obtain appropriate court approval of their settlement.
The case is Bodle v. TXL Mortg. Corp., No. 14-20224, 2015 WL 3478146 (5th Cir. June 1, 2015).
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.