Entry and Order Granting the “Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice” — No. 3:18-cv-00127 (Dkt. 39, S.D. Ohio)

Summary

An entry and order by United States District Judge Thomas M. Rose granting the joint motion for approval of settlement and stipulation of dismissal (Doc. 38) in Tenola Oliver v. RELX Inc. d/b/a Lexis Nexis, Case No. 3:18-cv-00127, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton, filed June 8, 2020 as Doc #: 39. The case is a collective action for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, alleging that employees were misclassified as exempt. The court approves the settlement as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute and dismisses the case with prejudice.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 39 Filed: 06/08/20 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 306




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                             WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

 TENOLA OLIVER, on behalf of herself and:
 all others similarly situated,         :
                                        :   Case No. 3:18-cv-00127
             Plaintiff,                 :
                                        :   Judge Thomas M. Rose
       v.                               :
                                        :
 RELX INC. d/b/a LEXIS NEXIS,           :
                                        :
             Defendant.                 :
______________________________________________________________________________

     ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING THE “JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL
    OF SETTLEMENT AND STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE”
                   (DOC. 38) AND TERMINATING THE CASE
______________________________________________________________________________

          This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and

Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 38) (the “Joint Motion”). This case is a collective

action with claims for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29

U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. §

4111.03 (“OMFWSA”). (See Docs. 1, 23.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the overtime

provisions of the FLSA and OMFWSA by misclassifying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated

employees as “exempt,” and not paying them overtime compensation at the appropriate rate. (Id.)

The Notice Period has closed, and a total of ten individuals, including the named Plaintiff, filed

written consent forms to join the lawsuit. (See Doc. 38 at PAGEID # 277; Doc. 38-2 at PAGEID

# 297.)

          In the Joint Motion, the parties request that the Court: (1) accept and approve their

proposed Settlement and Release Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) (Doc. 38-1) and find

                                                   1

   Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 39 Filed: 06/08/20 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 307




that it is a fair and reasonable settlement of a bona fide dispute over the provisions of the FLSA;

(2) dismiss the claims of the named Plaintiff and of the Opt-In Plaintiffs and dismiss this action

with prejudice; (3) order that the parties bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs except as

otherwise provided in the parties’ settlement; and (4) retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’

settlement. (Doc. 38.) The Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.

   I.      APPLICABLE LAW

        “Employees are guaranteed certain rights by the FLSA, and public policy requires that

these rights not be compromised by settlement.” Crawford v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty.

Gov’t, No. CV 06-299-JBC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90070, at *11, 2008 WL 4724499 (E.D. Ky.

Oct. 23, 2008). “The central purpose of the FLSA is to protect covered employees against labor

conditions ‘detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health,

efficiency, and general well-being of workers.’” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 202).

        Congress made the FLSA’s provisions mandatory and, except in two narrow

circumstances, they are generally not subject to bargaining, waiver, or modification by contract or

settlement. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1982);

Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706, 65 S. Ct. 895, 89 L. Ed. 1296 (1945); Crawford,

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90070, at *12. The first exception involves FLSA claims that are

supervised by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(c). Lynn’s Food Stores, 679

F.2d at 1353. The second exception is that “a stipulated judgment [may be] entered by a court

which has determined that a settlement proposed by an employer and employees, in a suit brought

by the employees under the FLSA, is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over

FLSA provisions.” Id. at 1355. Thus, in reviewing a settlement proposed by the parties in a suit



                                                2

   Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 39 Filed: 06/08/20 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 308




brought by employees under the FLSA, a district court must determine whether the settlement

represents a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.” Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d

at 1355.

       First, a district court must determine whether there is a bona fide dispute. “A bona fide

dispute exists when there are legitimate questions about the existence and extent of [the]

[d]efendant’s FLSA liability.” Selk v. Pioneers Mem. Healthcare Dist., 159 F. Supp. 3d 1164,

1172 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d

at 1354 (there must be “issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages, that are

actually in dispute”). Thus, there must be some doubt that the plaintiff-employee(s) would

succeed on the merits through litigation of the FLSA claims. Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1172. This

inquiry seeks to avoid a situation where parties negotiate around the FLSA’s requirements

concerning wages and overtime or otherwise manipulate the settlement process to permit the

employer to circumvent its obligations under the FLSA. Id.; Zego v. Meridian-Henderson, 2016

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113048, at *2-3, 2016 WL 4449648 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2016) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

       Second, “[a]fter a district court is satisfied that a bond fide dispute exists, it must then

determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable.” Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1172; see also

Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1353 (before providing approval, a court must “scrutiniz[e] the

settlement for fairness”). In making this determination, district courts usually consider various

factors in a totality of the circumstances approach. Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1173; Crawford, 2008

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90070, at *13-14. The following factors typically “should be considered when

determining whether a settlement is fair and reasonable under the FLSA: (1) the plaintiff’s range



                                                3

   Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 39 Filed: 06/08/20 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 309




of possible recovery; (2) the stage of proceedings and amount of discovery completed; (3) the

seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) the scope of any release provision in the

settlement agreement; (5) the experience and views of counsel and the opinion of participating

plaintiffs; and (6) the possibility of fraud or collusion.” Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1173. Another

relevant factor may be the “complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation,” but all

factors should be considered in light of FLSA provisions concerning the scope of an award in the

event that the employer violated the FLSA. Crawford, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90070, at *13-14;

29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (an employer who violates certain FLSA provisions—including those

regarding minimum wage and maximum hours—shall be liable for not only the amount of unpaid

wages/compensation, but also additional liquidated damages, a reasonable attorney’s fee, and costs

of the action). If, after considering these factors, the court “determines that the settlement reflects

a reasonable compromise over issues that are actually in dispute, then the court may approve the

settlement in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Id. at 1173-74

(internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, “[w]here a settlement agreement proposes an award

of attorney’s fees, such fees must be reasonable.” Jones v. Home Care Assistance of Cent. Ohio,

LLC, No. 2:18-cv-01342, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213145, at *2-3 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2019); see

also 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

   II.      ANALYSIS

         The Court finds that this case reflects a bona fide dispute between the parties over potential

liability under the FLSA, including whether Plaintiff and the Opt-In Plaintiffs were properly

compensated under the FLSA and/or OMFWSA, whether they are entitled to their claimed

overtime compensation under the FLSA and/or OMFWSA, and the amount of overtime



                                                   4

   Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 39 Filed: 06/08/20 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 310




compensation to which they would be entitled if such liability were established. (See, e.g., Doc.

1; Doc. 13; Doc. 38 at PAGEID # 278-79; Doc. 38-2 at PAGEID # 298.)

       The Court also finds the parties’ settlement to be fair and reasonable under the FLSA.

Among other things, submissions to the Court show that the parties have exchanged significant

amounts of information that permitted the parties and their respective counsel to evaluate one

another’s claims and defenses, Plaintiff’s counsel performed a complete analysis and calculation

of (alleged) overtime damages for Plaintiff and each of the Opt-In Plaintiffs, the Parties engaged

in comprehensive and adversarial settlement negotiations, counsel for the parties are experienced

and believe that the Settlement Agreement reflects a reasonable compromise of the disputed issues,

and Plaintiff’s counsel provided the Court with information that establishes the reasonableness of

the attorneys’ fees and costs agreed to in the Settlement Agreement. (See Doc. 1; Doc. 13; Doc.

38; Doc. 38-1; Doc. 38-2.)

       Additionally, the Settlement Agreement expressly covers Plaintiff and the Opt-In

Plaintiffs, not other employees who did not opt-in to this action (see Doc. 38 at PAGEID # 279;

Doc. 38-1 at PAGEID # 284). See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Cameron-Grant v. Maxim Healthcare

Servs., Inc., 347 F.3d 1240, 1249 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[e]ven if the § 216(b) plaintiff can demonstrate

that there are other plaintiffs ‘similarly situated’ to him … he has no right to represent them,” and

“[u]ntil such consent is given, no person will be bound by or may benefit from judgment”);

Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740, 101 S. Ct. 1437, 67 L. Ed. 2d

641 (1981).

       Therefore, after evaluating the parties’ settlement under the relevant standard, the Court

finds it to be a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions. Lynn’s



                                                 5

   Case: 3:18-cv-00127-TMR Doc #: 39 Filed: 06/08/20 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 311




Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1355. Additionally, based on the Settlement Agreement, the parties

stipulate to the dismissal of this case with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii). (Doc.

38 at PAGEID # 280.) The parties also agree to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs except

as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement. (Id.) The Court will retain jurisdiction to

enforce the parties’ settlement. Therefore, the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and

Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 38) is GRANTED, this action is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE, and this case shall be TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.

       DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, June 8, 2020.

                                                                    s/Thomas M. Rose
                                                            ________________________________
                                                                    THOMAS M. ROSE
                                                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                                  6

File and source

File

39.pdf

Size

174,937 bytes

SHA-256

736f342bc087d2a0b9054f227444560d7f2992417c3510ca2e9d2c1a21cb6e61

Our copy

39.pdf