Fox v. TTEC Service Corp

Filing 74

ORDER granting 73 joint motion to dismiss and for approval of settlement agreement; approving the settlement agreement; dismissing the action with prejudice and without costs to any party, except to the extent otherwise expressly provided in the parties settlement agreement; and retaining exclusive jurisdiction over the performance and enforcement of the settlement agreement and this Order. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 9/19/2022. (jbh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
KASEY FOX, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, et al.
v.

PLAINTIFFS

Case No. 4:19-cv-00037-KGB

TTEC SERVICES CORP.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Plaintiffs Kasey Fox, Rejia Foots, Lakesha Scott, Temisha Daniel, Mashaya Jordan, Brandi
Henson, Yvette Davis, Antionette Lane, and Latrice Peterson-Davis filed this action asserting
claims under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) (Dkt. No. 37, ¶ 56).
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss and for approval of settlement agreement
(Dkt. No. 73). The parties now request that the Court approve the settlement. Attached to the
motion as Exhibit 1 is a FLSA settlement agreement and release (“settlement agreement”) (Dkt.
No. 73-1).
The Court observes that additional individuals joined this action as plaintiffs, such that the
FLSA settlement agreement recites that it settles the claims of the following individuals: Temisha
Daniel, Yvette Davis, John Stephen Dawson, Rejia Foots, Kasey Fox, Jennifer Goforth, Brandi
Henson, Gina James, Darius Johnson, Mashaya Jordan, Kirstie Kelly, Vivian Koker-Thomas,
Antoinette Lane, Marvin Newsom, Latrice Peterson-Davis, Tasha Ponnell, Ralanda Richard,
Kendra Russell, LaMonda Rycraw, and Lakesha Scott as against defendant TTEC Services
Corporation (Dkt. No. 73-1, at 1).
Settlement agreements resolving FLSA claims are typically subject to court approval. See
Dillworth v. Case Farms Processing, Inc., Case No. 5:08-cv-1694, 2010 WL 776933 at *2 (N.D.
Ohio Mar. 8, 2010) (citing 29 U.S.C. §216(b)). Before approving a settlement, the Court must

ensure that the parties are not negotiating around the FLSA’s requirements and that the settlement
represents a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. See id. at *5; see also Int’l
Union, United Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. V. Gen. Motors Corp., 497
F.3d 615, 631 (6th Cir. 2007).
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has not directly addressed the factors to be considered
in deciding motions for approval of FLSA settlements. See generally Barbee v. Big River Steel,
LLC, 927 F.3d 1024, 1026–27 (8th Cir. 2019) (explaining that there is a circuit split on the issue
of “whether to extend older Supreme Court cases so as to require judicial approval of all FLSA
settlements[,]” and explaining that the Eighth Circuit has “never taken a side on this issue.”).
However, other courts have scrutinized such settlements for fairness in two steps:
First, the court should consider whether the compromise is fair and reasonable to
the employee (factors ‘internal’ to the compromise). If the compromise is
reasonable to the employee, the court should inquire whether the compromise
otherwise impermissibly frustrates implementation of the FLSA (factors ‘external’
to the compromise). The court should approve the compromise only if the
compromise is reasonable to the employee and furthers implementation of the
FLSA in the workplace.
Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1241 (M.D. Fla. 2010).
In their joint motion, the parties address the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
to prevailing plaintiffs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The parties represent that: “The Parties negotiated
attorneys’ fees and costs separately and without regard to Plaintiff[s]’ claim.” (Dkt. No. 73, at 5).
The Court observes that the settlement agreement includes provisions addressing attorneys’ fees,
including amounts; no party before the Court objects to the agreement (Dkt. No. 73-1, at 3). See
Barbee, 927 F.3d at 1027.
Having reviewed the settlement agreement, the Court determines that the settlement
agreement both provides plaintiffs a reasonable recovery and furthers the implementation of the

2

FLSA in the workplace. Therefore, the Court grants the joint motion to dismiss and for approval
of settlement agreement (Dkt. No. 73), and the Court approves the settlement agreement (Dkt. No.
73-1).
The action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party, except to the extent
otherwise expressly provided in the parties’ settlement agreement. The Court retains exclusive
jurisdiction over the performance and enforcement of the settlement agreement and this Order.
It is so ordered this the 19th day of September, 2022.

_________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

3