waiver in arbitration agreement was unconscionable and contrary to the purpose of the FLSA). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ argument that the right to bring a collective action is a nonwaivable substantive right under the FLSA has been rejected by every other district court in this Circuit to have considered the issue. See Zekri v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 1:10-CV-1740-MHS, 2010 WL 4660013 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 4, 2010) (Shoob, J.) (finding plaintiffs argument that the right to FLSA collective action is substantive lacked any merit in light of Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit, and other circuit court decisions upholding the waiver of the right to proceed in collective actions) ; DeOliveira v. Citicorp N. Am., Inc., No. 8:12-CV-251-T-26-TGW, 2012 WL 1831230 (M.D.Fla. May 18, 2012) (Lazzara, J.) (<HOLDING>); Slawienski v. Nephron Pharm. Corp., No.
holding that a collective action waiver contained in a separation and release agreement was enforceable in an flsa action and noting that the enforceability of a collective waiver does not change outside the arbitration context because arbitration agreements are scrutinized under contract theories and are on equal footing with contracts citations omitted holding arbitration decision disallowing insurers coverage defense binding in subsequent personal injury action where the issue was actually litigated and decided in prior action holding that an arbitrators decision in arbitration undertaken pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement is not binding on a plaintiff who pursues title vii remedies in court holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding that the eleventh circuits decision in caley v gulfstream aerospace corp was binding on the issue of enforceability of collective action waiver in an arbitration agreement