Saint-Preux v. Kiddies Kollege Christian Center, Inc.

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 19 Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and dismissing 6 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/20/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND,
Southern Division

*
KRISTAN SAINT-PREUX,

*
Plaintiff,

*
Civil Case No.: PWG-16-3276

v.

*
KIDDIES KOLLEGE CHRISTIAN
CENTER, INC.,

*
*

Defendant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 28,2016, Plaintiff Kristan Saint-Preux filed this action against Defendant
Kiddies Kollege Christian Center, Inc. ("Kiddies Kollege") alleging that Kiddies Kollege failed
to pay her overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
99201-219,

and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & EmpI.

99 3-401 to -431. Am. CompI. ~ 1, ECF NO.6. In addition, the Amended Complaint alleges that
Kiddies Kollege's failure to pay overtime compensation violated the Maryland Wage Payment
and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & EmpI. 993-501 to -509. Am. CompI.
~ 1. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of
her disability and failed to engage in the interactive process to accommodate

the same in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 9 12101-12213,
retaliated against her for pursuing her rights under the federal and state statutes.
~~ 1-2.

and

Am. Compo

On April 25, 2017, the Parties jointly moved for court approval of a settlement

agreement that they have executed and filed along with a Memorandum

in support of their

Motion.

Jt. Mot., ECF No. 19; Jt. Mem., ECF No. 22. I find the net amount Saint-Preux is to

receive to be fair and reasonable in light of the facts of this case.
I.

Background
Saint-Preux worked as a teacher's aide at Kiddies Kollege from roughly October 2014

until her termination on October 3, 2016.

Am. CompI. ~~ 24, 33, 69.

Plaintiff alleges that

Kiddies Kollege paid her a normal hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
See id. ~ 38. From her hiring, through August 15,2015, Saint-Preux was paid at a regular rate
of nine dollars ($9.00) per hour. Id. ~ 36. From August 16,2015 to her termination, Saint-Preux
was paid at a regular rate often dollars ($10.00) per hour. Id. ~ 37. After Saint-Preux filed her
Complaint on September 28,2016, Defendant direct deposited $918.27 into Saint-Preux's bank
account, and issued a pay statement for a gross payment for the same amount for 171 hours of
unpaid overtime. Jt. Mot. ~ 3.
The Settlement Agreement "releases Defendant ...

from all manner of actions ...

that

arose out of ... Plaintiff's employment and/or the Litigation prior to the date of this Agreement
....

" and provides Saint-Preux with $918.27 in liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA's

penalty provisions.
Saint-Preux's

Agreement ~~ 1, 5, ECF No. 19-1.

Although Kiddies Kollege denies

discrimination and retaliation allegations, the proposed settlement also provides

$4,081.73 for payment of attorneys' fees and costs associated with the non-FLSA claims.
Mot. ~ 10.

Plaintiff is not seeking attorney's

settlement. Jt. Mot. ~ 11.
II.

Discussion
a. FLSA Settlement Generally

2

fees for Plaintiff's

Jt.

overtime claims in this

Congress enacted the FLSA to protect workers from the poor wages and long hours that
can result from significant inequalities in bargaining power between employers and employees.
To that end, the statute's provisions are mandatory and generally are not subject to bargaining,
waiver, or modification by contract or settlement.
697, 706 (1945).

See Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. 0 'Neil, 324 U.S.

Court-approved settlement is an exception to that rule, "provided that the

settlement reflects a 'reasonable compromise of disputed issues' rather than 'a mere waiver of
statutory rights brought about by an employer's overreaching.'"

Saman v. LBDP, Inc., No.

DKC-12-1083, 2013 WL 2949047, at *2 (D. Md. June 13,2013) (quoting Lynn's Food Stores,
Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (1Ith Cir. 1982)). Although the Fourth Circuit has not
addressed the factors to be considered in approving FLSA settlements, "district courts in this
circuit typically employ the considerations set forth by the Eleventh Circuit in Lynn's Food
Stores." Id. at *3 (citing Hoffman v. First Student, Inc., No. WDQ-06-1882, 2010 WL 1176641,
at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2010); Lopez v. NTL LLC, 748 F. Supp. 2d 471, 478 (D. Md. 2010)). The
settlement must "reflect a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA
provisions," which includes findings with regard to (1) whether there are FLSA issues actually in
dispute, (2) the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement in light of the relevant factors from
Rule 23, and (3) the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees, if included in the agreement.

Id.

(citing Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1355; Lomascolo v. Parsons BrinckerhojJ, Inc., No. 081310,2009 WL 3094955, at *10 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2009); Lane v. Ko-Me, LLC, No. DKC-102261,2011

WL 3880427, at *2-3 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2011)). These factors are most likely to be

satisfied where there is an "assurance

of an adversarial

context"

and the employee

is

"represented by an attorney who can protect [his] rights under the statute." Lynn's Food Stores,
679 F.2d at 1354. Lynn's Food Stores, only requires "compromises of FLSA back wage or
3

liquidated damages claims" to be approved by the District Court in determining whether a
settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court does not need to review parties' settlements of other
FLSA claims that do not relate to back payor liquidated damages.

See id. at 1355; Galvez v.

Americlean Servs. Corp., No. 1:11CV1351 (JCC/TCB), 2012 WL 2522814, at *4 n.4 (E.D. Va.
June 29, 2012) ("The Court need not engage in an in-depth review of the parties' settlement of
[an FLSA] retaliation claim, provided its terms do not contaminate the settlement of claims
relating to unpaid overtime and unpaid wages.").
b. Bona Fide Dispute
In deciding whether a bona fide dispute exists as to a defendant's

liability under the

FLSA, courts examine the pleadings in the case, along with the representations and recitals in 'the
proposed settlement agreement.

See Lomascolo, 2009 WL 3094955, at *16-17.

The parties

agree that a bona fide dispute exists as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated (i.e., double)
damages under the FLSA in light of Defendant's assertion of good faith. Jt. Mem. 2. The FLSA
permits Plaintiffs to seek liquidated damages for unpaid overtime wages.

S 2l6(b).

See 29 U.S.C.

But courts have discretion to decline to award liquidated damages where an employer

demonstrates that it committed an FLSA violation in good faith.

Randolph v. PowerComm

Const., Inc., No. GJH-13-1696, 2014 WL 4981439, at *3 (D. Md. Oct. 1,2014).

Thus, a bona

fide dispute exists as to whether Saint-Preux is entitled to any enhanced damages. Pl.'s Mem. 2.
c. Fairness & Reasonableness
In evaluating the fairness and reasonableness of this settlement, I must consider:
(l) the extent of discovery that has
including the complexity, expense
absence of fraud or collusion in the
have represented the plaintiff[]; (5)

taken place; (2) the stage of the proceedings,
and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the
settlement; (4) the experience of counsel who
the opinions of class counsel ... ; and (6) the

4

probability of plaintiffl's] success on the merits and the amount of the settlement
in relation to the potential recovery.
Lomascolo, 2009 WL 3094955, at *1O.
First, after the Court issued a Scheduling Order in the case, Plaintiff requested all
timesheets and timekeeping records from Defendant.
produced, Plaintiffs

"Upon review of the timekeeping records

and Defendant's counsel agree(d] that Plaintiff is not owed more than the

$918.27 payment made by Defendant," obviating the need for additional discovery. Pl.'s Mem.
2. Second, the parties negotiated the Settlement Agreement at an early stage in the litigation in
order to avoid further costs associated with deposing witnesses and further attorney's fees. Idat
3.

With regard to the third factor, the parties state that they engaged in arms-length and

good-faith

negotiations

through

their respective

counsel.

Id

at 2-3.

I accept these

representations and am satisfied that no fraud or collusion contributed the parties' decision to
settle the claims. Id at 3-4. Additionally, the parties have established counsel's experience with
FLSA cases. Id at 4. As for the fifth factor, it is not relevant here, as it pertains to class actions.
See Lomascolo, 2009 WL 3094955, at *10.
With regard to the sixth factor, the settlement provides for $918.27 in liquidated
damages.

Jt. Mem. 2.

But, given Kiddies Kollege's assertion of "good faith," it is possible

that the Court might exercise its discretion to decline to award liquidated damages if Saint-Preux
pursued the litigation further.

Randolph, 2014 WL 4981439, at *3. Thus, the compromise

avoids the possibility that Saint-Preux might be unable to prove her entitlement to anything
beyond the overtime wages that Kiddies Kollege has already paid her should she persist in
litigating the case.

5

In addition, the Settlement Agreement contains a general release of claims beyond those
specified in the Complaint.

Agreement ~ 3. A general release of this sort can render settlement

agreements unreasonable.

See, e.g., Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1352 (M.D.

Fla. 2010)

that "a pervasive

(concluding

release

in an FLSA

settlement

confers

an

uncompensated, unevaluated, and unfair benefit on the employer" that "fails judicial scrutiny");
McKeen-Chaplin

v. Franklin Am. Mortg. Co., No. 10-5243,2012 WL 6629608, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

Dec. 19, 2012).

But, if the employee is compensated reasonably for the release executed, the

settlement can be accepted, and I am not required to evaluate the reasonableness

of the

settlement as to the non-FLSA claims. See Saman, 2013 WL 2949047, at *5 (citing Robertson v.
Ther-Rx Corp., No. 09-1010-MHT, 2011 WL 1810193, at *2 (M.D. Ala. May 12,2011)); Bright
v. Mental Health Res. Ctr., Inc., No. 09-1010, 2012 WL 868804, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14,
2012)).

In this case, Saint-Preux is receiving 100% of her claim for unpaid overtime and an

equal sum in liquidated damages, this percentage fairly compensates her for the release executed.
Agreement ~ 5; see also Duprey, F. Supp. 3d at 410 (general release did not render a settlement
unfair when the plaintiff "was compensated for almost eighty percent of his back pay ... plus an
additional

$2,250 in liquidated

damages").

Accordingly,

I find the settlement

fair and

reasonable.
d. Attorneys' Fees
The settlement discussions resulted in an agreement that Defendant would not pay
attorney's fees associated with Plaintiffs

FLSA claim, which Defendant would be liable for if

Plaintiff successfully pursued her claim to a judgement.

29 U.S.C.

S 216(b);

Jt.Mem. 2-3. The

Settlement Agreement allocates the remaining $4,081.73 of the settlement payment as Plaintiffs
attorney's fees and costs related to her non-FLSA claims, which do not require Court approval.
6

Jt. Mem. 3.; See Amaya v. Young & Chang, Inc., No. PWG-14-749, 2014 WL 3671569, at *3 (D.
Md. July 22, 2014).

Accordingly, the reasonableness inquiry is restricted to the settlement

amount related to Plaintiff s FLSA claim, and no further inquiry is necessary into the adequacy
of the agreed-upon fees.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the net amount proposed to resolve Saint-Preux's claims

provides a fair and reasonable compromise as to the bona fide dispute of FLSA liability.

The

Joint Motion to Approve Settlement is granted, and all counts in the Amended Complaint are
dismissed with prejudice.
ORDER
Accordingly, it is this 20th day of June, 2017, hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Joint Motion to Approve Settlement, ECF No. 19, IS GRANTED;
2. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF NO.6, IS DISMISSED with prejudice;
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE THE CASE.

Paul
Grimm
United States District Judge
car

7