U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 9— PORTAL-TO-PORTAL PAY

29 U.S.C. § 253

Compromise and waiver

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Compromise of certain existing claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Walsh-Healey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act; limitations

Any cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Walsh-Healey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act,11 See References in Text note below. which accrued prior to May 14, 1947, or any action (whether instituted prior to or on or after May 14, 1947) to enforce such a cause of action, may hereafter be compromised in whole or in part, if there exists a bona fide dispute as to the amount payable by the employer to his employee; except that no such action or cause of action may be so compromised to the extent that such compromise is based on an hourly wage rate less than the minimum required under such Act, or on a payment for overtime at a rate less than one and one-half times such minimum hourly wage rate.

(b) Waiver of liquidated damages under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

Any employee may hereafter waive his right under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], to liquidated damages, in whole or in part, with respect to activities engaged in prior to May 14, 1947.

(c) Satisfaction

Any such compromise or waiver, in the absence of fraud or duress, shall, according to the terms thereof, be a complete satisfaction of such cause of action and a complete bar to any action based on such cause of action.

(d) Retroactive effect of section

The provisions of this section shall also be applicable to any compromise or waiver heretofore so made or given.

(e) “Compromise” defined

As used in this section, the term “compromise” includes “adjustment”, “settlement”, and “release”.

(May 14, 1947, ch. 52, § 3, 61 Stat. 86.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is act June 25, 1938, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, which is classified generally to chapter 8 (§ 201 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 201 of this title and Tables.

The Walsh-Healey and Bacon-Davis Acts, referred to in subsec. (a), are defined for purposes of this chapter in section 262 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1947–2025 · leading case: Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., 944 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., 944 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “84 , 86 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 253 (enacted May 14, 1947)). But Congress limited such settlements to those involving “a bona fide dispute as to the amount payable by the employer.”
Kraus v. Pa Fit II, LLC, 155 F. Supp. 3d 516 (E.D. Pa. 2016). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff instead suggests that under 29 U.S.C. § 253 (a), the Court should approve the parties’ proposed settlement without looking at its terms, because it resolves a bona fide dispute not intended to pay Plaintiff back wages in an amount less than the FLSA’s statutory minimum…”
Martinez v. Bohls Bearing Equip. Co., 361 F. Supp. 2d 608 (W.D. Tex. 2005). · cites it 3× “§ 253 (a) provides, Any cause of action under the [FLSA]' which accrued prior to May 14, 1947, or any action (whether instituted prior to or on or after May 14, 1947) to enforce such a cause of action, may hereafter be compromised in whole or in part, if there exists a bona fide…”
Archer v. TNT USA Inc., 12 F. Supp. 3d 373 (E.D.N.Y 2014). · cites it 5× “which accrued prior to May 14,1947, or any action (whether instituted prior to or on or after May 14, 1947) to enforce such a cause of action, may hereafter be compromised in whole or in part, if there exists a bona fide dispute as to the amount payable by the employer to his…”
Martin v. Spring Break '83 Prods., L.L.C., 688 F.3d 247 (5th Cir. 2012). “”); 29 U.S.C. § 253 (a). Notably, in Thomas v.”
Lopez v. NTI, LLC, 748 F. Supp. 2d 471 (D. Maryland 2010). “” 29 U.S.C. § 253 (a). When determining whether to approve a settlement, courts typically assess the settlement for reasonableness, often using the rubric suggested in Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc.”
Picerni v. Bilingual Seit & Preschool Inc., 925 F. Supp. 2d 368 (E.D.N.Y 2013). “But Martinez is correct in noting that the cases have split as to whether the subsequent amendment of the FLSA, at 29 U.S.C. § 253 , has abrogated or at least limited Brooklyn Savings and Gangi .”
Hernandez v. Stringer, 210 F. Supp. 3d 54 (D.D.C. 2016). “Defendants rely on 29 U.S.C. § 253 as authorization for private settlement of wage claims.”
Stilwell v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, Inc., 174 F.2d 714 (3rd Cir. 1949). · cites it 2× “86 , 29 U.S.C.A. § 253 ; (c) if the release is not a bar to all of Roche’s rights, it is at least a waiver of his claim to liquidated damages; and (d) under general contract law, Roche may be held to his release since he did not restore the consideration therefor.”
Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States ex rel. U. S. Dep't of Labor, Emp. Standards Admin., Wage & Hour Div., 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982). “Plaintiffs cite 29 U.S.C. § 253 as authorizing private settlements between employers and employees of FLSA back wage claims.”
United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., Inc., 517 F.2d 826 (5th Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “*862 Perhaps it was in an effort to mollify Justice Jackson’s indignation that Congress enacted the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act in 1947, 42 one provision of which ( 29 U.S.C. § 253 (a)) expressly declared that FLSA claims “may hereafter be compromised in whole or in part, if there…”
Hogue v. Nat'l Auto. Parts Ass'n, 87 F. Supp. 816 (E.D. Mich. 1949). · cites it 2× “It is the defendant’s contention that 29 U.S.C.A. § 253 , Portal-to-Portal Act, is a complete and effective bar to plaintiff’s cause of action as a result of the claimed compromise, settlement and release effected by the parties to this suit on the basis of the transaction above…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.