Milonic JavaScript Menu is only visible when JavaScript is enabled
DMI home

Using a Lie Detector Test to Settle an FLSA Case? What Will They Think of Next?

I recently came across an interesting Report and Recommendation from the Middle District involving a very creative proposed FLSA settlement.  The District Judge later adopted the R & R. 

As often (always?) happens in FLSA cases, in this case there were great discrepancies between the plaintiff's and defendant's versions of the number of hours worked by the plaintiff.  Usually when the parties want to settle such a case, they agree on a fair number somewhere in the middle and are done with it. 

Here, however, the parties struck a much more creative bargain.  The plaintiff agreed to sit for a lie detector test, and be asked "whether he worked five, ten, and finally, fifteen hours per week, on average, of overtime".  If the plaintiff "passed" the test, the defendant would pay the overtime amount, plus a fee amount to be determined by the court.  If the results were inconclusive, the defendant would pay $10,000 total.  If the plaintiff failed the test, the plaintiff would get nothing, and would have to pay 1/2 of the cost of the test.

The parties asked the court to approve this scheme before they went forward with the lie detector test.  The court denied the motion without prejudice, under the thinking that "the parties are not asking the court to approve a settlement - they are asking the court to approve a method of reaching a settlement".  The court acknowledged that the parties' plan would be "quicker and cheaper than a jury", but said that would also be true of “dueling and coin flips".  In other words, it doesn't matter how you reach the settlement - it can be totally arbitrary - but the court will not analyze the settlement unless the terms are concrete. 

The case is still pending so it is possible that the parties might go forward with the test.  One thought that I had was this - I used to be a public defender in Ohio.  In some cases, the prosecutor's office would suggest having the criminal defendant undergo a lie detector test.  Sometimes we would agree, but only after we had our own lie detector operator administer a test, under the cover of privilege, and the defendant passed with flying colors.  I wonder if the plaintiff's attorney did the same thing here before agreeing to this settlement?


The Florida Employer

Reporting employment and immigration law developments that affect Florida employers.

Search The Florida Employer's blog

« April 2014
Michael W. Casey III, Kevin E. Vance, Mark J. Beutler, and Teresa M. Maestrelli practice labor and employment law, with a particular focus on labor and employment litigation, including Title VII, ADEA, ADA, Florida Civil Rights Act, and whistleblower claims, as well as non-compete litigation, in state and federal trial and appellate courts in Florida and throughout the United States. They also represent employers before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the National Mediation Board (NMB), the U.S. Department of Labor, including the Wage and Hour Division and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and various state and local agencies, as well as in arbitrations, collective-bargaining negotiations and union representation elections. Hector A. Chichoni practices in the area of US and global immigration law. He chairs Duane Morris's Florida Immigration Practice. The editors of Chambers USA 2010 also selected Mr. Chichoni as a "Leader in the Immigration Field." He has represented a vast number of corporate and individual clients throughout his career ranging from premier US health care organizations, Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies, multinational corporations and universities to doctors, professors, researchers and students. His international experience includes handling matters relating to export controls and global corporate compliance and business transactions. He has represented clients in a wide variety of cases before the US Immigration Court.
© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.
The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.