Eleventh Circuit Solidifies Lodestar Presumption and Objection Specificity in FLSA Fee-Shifting

Commentary on Soraya Barker v. WBY, Inc. (11th Cir. Aug. 22, 2025)

Introduction

The consolidated appeals in Becton v. WBY, Inc. and Barker v. WBY, Inc. presented the Eleventh Circuit with an increasingly common post-settlement dispute: how much should defendants pay in attorneys’ fees when a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case settles for less than the plaintiffs originally envisioned? The underlying litigation—spanning seven years, two federal courts, and parallel bankruptcy proceedings—centered on exotic dancers and waitresses who alleged that Follies Strip Club (owned by WBY, Inc., Surrey White, and Steven Youngelson) had misclassified them as independent contractors, thereby denying them minimum wage, overtime, and full tips.

Although the substantive wage claims were resolved through negotiated settlements, the parties fiercely contested the fee awards. The district court granted more than $1.6 million in aggregate fees to three plaintiffs’ firms. On appeal, the defendants argued chiefly that (1) the lodestar should have been reduced to reflect the plaintiffs’ “limited success,” and (2) many of the billed hours were excessive, duplicative, or unrelated to the FLSA claims.

Summary of the Judgment

Writing per curiam, a panel comprising Circuit Judges Jordan, Luck, and Marcus affirmed in full the district court’s fee awards. The Court held that:

• The lodestar figure (reasonable rate × reasonable hours) is “strongly presumed” to be the correct fee, and downward adjustments are warranted only in rare circumstances.
• Where parties stipulate in a settlement that plaintiffs are “prevailing” for fee purposes, and the litigation vindicates statutory FLSA rights, the district court need not discount the fee solely because the monetary recovery is smaller than initially contemplated.
• Defendants bear a reciprocal burden of making specific, line-item objections to time entries; generalized complaints that records are “voluminous” or “facially excessive” are inadequate.
• The district court did not abuse its discretion in crediting attorney time spent in related bankruptcy proceedings because the work protected and preserved the plaintiffs’ FLSA claims.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983)
  Provided the foundational “lodestar” methodology and articulated that degree of success is the “most critical factor.” The panel distinguished Hensley’s admonition to consider results by emphasizing FLSA’s mandatory fee provision.
• Resolution Trust Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993) & Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP, 846 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2017)
  Both underscore that altering a valid lodestar is “severely limited.” The Court relied on these cases to reinforce the “rare circumstance” threshold.
• Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc., 548 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2008)
  Reaffirmed courts’ discretion either to conduct item-by-item analysis or apply an across-the-board cut when hours seem unreasonable. The panel cited Bivins to validate the district judge’s mixed approach.
• Norman v. Housing Authority of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988) & ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423 (11th Cir. 1999)
  Both establish that fee opponents must provide “specific and reasonably precise” objections. The appellate court used these authorities to dismiss defendants’ sweeping challenges.
• Distinguished Authority: Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), and Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto Max, 981 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 2020). The panel explained that unlike civil-rights statutes or Rule 68 cost-shifting contexts, the FLSA contains a uniquely one-way, mandatory fee clause, diminishing the comparative weight of damages recovered.

2. Legal Reasoning

1. Lodestar Presumption
   The Court began with the canonical two-step lodestar. Because both rate and hours had already been exhaustively vetted—and no party challenged the approved hourly rates—only the hours component was in play. The panel reiterated that once a court finds the hours “reasonable,” the resulting product “is strongly presumed to represent an appropriate attorney’s fee.”
2. Prevailing-Party Stipulation
   The settlements explicitly deemed every plaintiff a “prevailing party within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 216.” The Eleventh Circuit treated that clause as dispositive on success, rejecting the defendants’ invitation to relitigate proportionality. As the Court observed, the plaintiffs “brought only FLSA claims for which they recovered a meaningful settlement amount.”
3. Public-Policy Weight of FLSA
   Citing Parker v. DeKalb Chrysler Plymouth, 673 F.2d 1178 (11th Cir. 1982), the panel declared that the FLSA embodies both private and public goals. Therefore, courts must avoid a purely “cash-register” mathematics that undervalues the non-monetary vindication of statutory rights.
4. Specificity Requirement for Objections
   The Court faulted defendants for “cut-and-paste” objections and for failing to “itemize” allegedly redundant entries. Under Home Depot, the precision of the court’s findings may track the precision of objections; vague protests justify a correspondingly broad dismissal.
5. Bankruptcy-Related Fees
   Hours spent opposing reorganization plan modifications and reserve-account maneuvers were deemed integral; had plaintiffs not defended those skirmishes, their ability to collect on any judgment could have been thwarted. Thus, the appellate court endorsed recovering fees incurred in multiple fora when the work advanced the FLSA claims’ enforceability.

3. Impact on Future Litigation

• Higher Bar for Downward Adjustments
  Defendants in FLSA cases face an uphill battle to reduce a lodestar when (a) plaintiffs secure any meaningful relief and (b) settlements stipulate prevailing-party status. The Eleventh Circuit’s language will likely curb attempts to equate “proportionality” with “reasonableness.”
• Requirement of Granular Objections
  Defense counsel must now painstakingly marshal line-item challenges—or risk waiver. Boilerplate accusations of duplication will seldom suffice.
• Recognition of Multi-Forum Efforts
  The decision confirms that hours spent in bankruptcy or ancillary proceedings are compensable when they protect or enhance an eventual FLSA recovery. Plaintiffs’ lawyers can safely engage in cross-court strategy without jeopardizing fee recovery.
• Settlement Strategy
  Employers contemplating settlement should weigh the cost of attorneys’ fees calculated at full lodestar value, not simply a percentage of overtime back-pay. Clear fee caps or Rule 68 offers may become more attractive tools.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act)
  A 1938 statute setting national minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping standards. It contains a “one-way” fee-shifting clause: prevailing employees must be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees.
• Lodestar Method
  The court multiplies a lawyer’s reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably expended. The resulting “lodestar” is presumed reasonable; adjustments are rare.
• Prevailing Party
  A litigant who wins on any significant claim achieving a material alteration in the legal relationship. In FLSA, settlements can expressly deem plaintiffs prevailing for fee purposes.
• Bankruptcy Automatic Stay (§ 362)
  A statutory halt on litigation against a debtor once bankruptcy is filed. Creditors must ask the bankruptcy court to “lift” (terminate) the stay before suing elsewhere.
• Plan of Reorganization
  A Chapter 11 debtor’s blueprint for paying claims and emerging from bankruptcy. Here, WBY offered FLSA claimants only 10 % of alleged wages—prompting parallel district-court suits.
• Across-the-Board Cut
  Instead of striking individual time entries, a judge can reduce total hours by a specific percentage when records are inadequate or work is plainly excessive.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Barker/Becton amplifies two key principles: (1) the lodestar’s presumption of reasonableness in FLSA fee litigation is exceptionally resilient, and (2) fee challengers must meet specificity with specificity. By affirming substantial fee awards—despite partial monetary success—the Court underscored Congress’s intent that FLSA rights be vigorously vindicated without regard to the ultimate damages figure. Future litigants should heed the directive: negotiate clear fee provisions during settlement, document time meticulously, and, if objecting, do so with a surgeon’s precision, not a bulldozer’s breadth.