Edwards et al v. Mansfield, City of et al

Filing 27

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying as moot 23 joint Motion filed May 11, 2016 and granting 26 parties' joint Motion for approval of settlement of claims and approving the parties' proposed settlement agreement. The Court w ill retain jurisdiction over this action for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiffs' claims are, therefore, dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs and the fees to be paid as set forth in the settlement agreement. Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Veccharelli 5/16/16(C,KA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ALAN EDWARDS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF MANSFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-959

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NANCY A. VECCHIARELLI

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
(Doc. Nos. 23, 26)

This matter is before the Court upon the consent of the parties entered July 31,
2015. (Doc. No. 7.) Currently pending is the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
filed by Plaintiffs1 and Defendants City of Mansfield and Lori Cope, which seeks the
Court’s approval of a settlement agreement resolving Plaintiffs’ claims filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. For the reasons that

1

The Plaintiffs in this action are sixty-three (63) current and former law
enforcement officers employed by Defendant City of Mansfield. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs in this action are Alan Edwards, Andrew Boor, Angie Eichinger, Bret
Snavely, Carolyn Young, Chad Brubaker, Dan Martincin, Dave Johnson, David
Scheurer, Denny Kiner, Dominga Chatman, Don Rhinehart, Doug Seman,
Douglas Noblet, Frank Parrella, Jacob Rietschlin, Jason Bammann, Jeff Gillis,
Jeff McKinley, Jered Kingsborough, Jim Moore, John Wendling, Jon Ahles,
Joseph Petrycki, Joseph Soehnlen, Joy Stortz, Ken Carroll, Korey Kaufman,
Larry Schacherer, Matt Loughman, Michael Napier, Mike Garn, Mike Higgins,
Nelson Kilgore, Nicole Gearhart, Orlando Chatman, Patrick Williams, Paul
Lumadue, Perry Wheeler, R. Carver, Rich Dittrich, Rich Miller, Richard Clapp,
Robert Skropits, Ronee Swisher, Ryan Anschutz, Ryan Garner, Ryan Grimshaw,
Sara Mosier-Napier, Shane Gearhart, Shane Gess, Shari Robertson, Stacie
Garrick, Stephen Blust, Stephen Brane, Stephen Hornback, Terry Butler, Terry
Rogers, Todd Vanausdale, Toneli Webb, William Bushong, and William
Clemons.

follow, the proposed Settlement is APPROVED and the Joint Motion (Doc. No. 26) is
GRANTED as set forth herein.2
I.

Background
In this action, filed May 15, 2015, Plaintiffs sought to recover wages alleged to

have been earned by them and owed to them by their current and/or former employer,
Defendant City of Mansfield. (Doc. No. 1.) In their Answer, Defendants City of
Mansfield (hereinafter “the City”) and Lori Cope3 denied that Plaintiffs were entitled to
additional wages, and further denied that the City violated the FLSA. (Doc. No. 3.)
The Court conducted a Case Management Conference with counsel on August 14,
2015, at which time the parties indicated they believed the matter would be appropriate
for alternative dispute resolution. (Doc. No. 9.) The Court thereafter conducted a
mediation conference on January 28, 2016. (Doc. No. 15.) At that time, the Court
determined that, in order for mediation to be fruitful, the parties required further
discussion and time sheet review. (Id.) Upon motion of the parties, the Court extended
the case management deadlines in this matter and scheduled a second mediation
conference for April 21, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19.)
On April 14, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion to continue the mediation
conference, on the grounds they had reached a tentative settlement agreement. (Doc.

2

The parties previously filed a Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Doc. No.
23) on May 11, 2016. As discussed infra, that motion is superceded by the
instant Joint Motion for Approval. Accordingly, the Joint Motion filed May 11,
2016 (Doc. No. 23) is denied as moot.
3

Defendant Cope was sued in her official capacity as Safety-Service Director of
the City of Mansfield. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 6.)
-2-

No. 20.) The Court granted the motion and conducted a telephonic status conference
with counsel on May 2, 2016 regarding the status of the parties’ tentative settlement
agreement. (Doc. Nos. 21, 22.)
On May 11, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
Agreement,4 attached to which is a copy of the proposed Settlement And Release
Agreement. (Doc. Nos. 23, 23-1.) The Court conducted a telephonic conference with
counsel on May 13, 2016, at which time the parties were ordered to re-file the joint
motion to reflect that this Court will retain jurisdiction over the agreement for a period of
ninety (90) days. (Doc. No. 25.) The Court also ordered that the re-filed Joint Motion
and proposed settlement shall reflect the resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims against
Defendant Lori Cope. (Id.)
On May 13, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Doc.
No. 26) that complied with the Court’s order. Thus, the previously filed Joint Motion for
Approval of Settlement (Doc. No. 23) is denied as moot, and the Court will proceed to
rule on the re-filed Joint Motion for Approval (Doc. No. 26.)
II.

Standard
The provisions of the FLSA are mandatory and, except in two narrow

circumstances, are generally not subject to bargaining, waiver, or modification by
contract or settlement. See Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706, 65 S.Ct.

4

The parties captioned this filing as a “Stipulated Order and Final Judgment.” In
the first sentence of this document, however, the parties state that “[t]his matter
is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
pursuant to §16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 20 U.S.C. §
216(b).” (Doc. No. 23 at 1.)
-3-

895, 89 L.Ed. 1296 (1945); Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d
1350,1352–53 (11th Cir. 1982). The first exception involves FLSA claims that are
supervised by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(c). See Lynn's
Foods, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1353. The second exception, applicable here, encompasses
instances in which federal district courts approve settlement of suits brought in federal
district court pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA.5 Id.
As recently explained in a decision from this District, the following considerations
apply in review of proposed FLSA settlements:
In reviewing the settlement of a federal plaintiff's FLSA claims, the district
court must “ensure that the parties are not, via settlement of [the] claims,
negotiating around the clear FLSA requirements of compensation for all
hours worked, minimum wages, maximum hours, and overtime.' ” Rotuna
v. W. Customer Mgmt. Group LLC, No. 4:09CV1608, 2010 WL 2490989
(N.D. Ohio June 15, 2010) (quoting Collins v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 568
F.Supp.2d 714, 719 (E.D. La. 2000) (further citation omitted)). The
existence of a bona fide dispute serves as a guarantee that the parties
have not manipulated the settlement process to permit the employer to
avoid its obligations under the FLSA. Id. (citing Crawford, 2008 WL
4724499, at *3). The Court should also consider the following factors: the
risk of fraud or collusion, the complexity, expense, and likely duration of
the litigation, the amount of discovery completed, the likelihood of success
on the merits, and the public interest in settlement. [footnote omitted]
Crawford, 2008 WL 4724499, at *3 (citing Int'l Union, United Auto.,
Aerospace, and Agr. Workers of Am. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615,
5

Another district court within this Circuit recently explained that “[t]he circuits are
split on whether settlements or stipulations of dismissal for FLSA claims require
court approval. Compare Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S., 679 F.2d 1350, 1352
(11th Cir. 1982) (requiring court approval), and Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake
House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015) (requiring court approval), and
Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc., 493 F.3d 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2007) (requiring
court approval), with Martin v. Spring Break '83 Prods., L.L.C., 688 F.3d 247, 256
(5th Cir. 2012) (not requiring court approval).” Steele v. Staffmark Investments,
LLC, ---- F.Supp.3d ----, 2016 WL 1156744 (W.D. Tenn. March 23, 2016). The
Sixth Circuit has yet to rule definitively on the question. Id. Here, the Court need
not decide this issue as the parties do not dispute that court approval is required.
-4-

631 (6th Cir. 2007)). In addition, where the settlement agreement
proposes an award of attorney's fees, such fees must be reasonable. See
generally Reed v. Rhodes, 179 F.3d 453, 471 (6th Cir.1999) (citing Blum
v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 893, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984)).
Schneider v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2014 WL 2579637 at * 2 (N.D. Ohio June 9,
2014) (Lioi, J.).6 See also Pittman v. Things Remembered, 2014 WL 5073764 at * 2
(N.D. Ohio October 8, 2014) (Lioi, J.); Bradford v. Legacy Health Services, 2014 WL
6473588 at * 2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2014) (White, M.J.); Gentrup v. Renovo Services,
L.L.C, 2011 WL 2532922 at * 2–3 (S.D. Ohio June 24, 2011); Dillworth v. Case Farms
Processing, Inc., 2010 WL 776933 at * 5–6 (N.D. Ohio March 8, 2010) (Lioi, J.);
Crawford v. Lexington–Fayette Urban County Government, 2008 WL 4724499 (E.D. Ky.
October 23, 2008); Snook v. Valley Ob-Gyn Clinic, PC., 2015 WL 144400 at * 1 (E.D.
Mich. Jan. 12, 2015). “The court may choose to consider only factors that are relevant
to the settlement at hand and may weigh particular factors according to the demands of
the case.” Gentrup, 2011 WL 2532922 at * 3.
III. Analysis
Upon careful review, the Court finds the pleadings demonstrate that the instant
action presents a bona fide dispute. Plaintiffs assert the Defendant City’s method of
calculating overtime wages violates the FLSA because it fails to include Plaintiffs’
contractually guaranteed “wage augments” in their “regular rate” of pay, the rate to
which Plaintiffs allege the FLSA’s time and a half overtime multiplier is applied. (Doc.
No. 1 at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that, over the past three years, Defendants
6

In class actions, of which this case is not, the court should also consider the
opinion of class counsel and class representatives and the reaction of absent
class members. See Schneider, 2014 WL 2579637 at fn. 1.
-5-

“would routinely pay the Plaintiffs at an overtime rate that did not take into account the
wages paid to Plaintiffs as longevity pay, uniform allowance and shift differential.” (Id. at
3.) Plaintiffs further assert the City “had no good faith or reasonable ground for
believing that it was justified in failing to include the various additional elements of
compensation in the regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime in work periods
during which the plaintiffs worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a twenty-four (24) hour
consecutive period of time and forty (40) hours during a six (6) consecutive day work
day period of time.” (Id. at ¶ 18.) Defendants denied that they violated the FLSA and
maintained Plaintiffs’ claims “are barred based upon payments received by the plaintiffs
in lieu of compensation or as part of their compensation.” (Doc. No. 3 at ¶ 10.) The
divergent views of the facts and the law present bona fide disputes that, had the parties
not reached settlement, would have necessitated resolution by the Court and/or a jury.
The Court further finds the majority of the terms of the settlement agreement are
fair and reasonable. In this regard, the Court notes the settlement was the product of
arms-length negotiations between parties that were represented by capable and
experienced counsel. Indeed, both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ counsel believe the
proposed overall settlement amount is fair and reasonable, which weighs in favor of
approving the total settlement amount. See Gentrup, 2011 WL 2532922 at * 3.
Additionally, the Court observes that, given the factual and legal complexity of the case,
there is no guarantee Plaintiffs would have prevailed. In contrast, the Settlement
Agreement assures that Plaintiffs will receive compensation for the alleged violations at
issue. As one court in this District has found, “the certainty and finality that comes with
settlement also weighs in favor of” approving a fair and reasonable settlement.
-6-

Dillworth, 2010 WL 776933 at * 6. Moreover, approval of a fair and reasonable
agreement promotes the public’s interest in encouraging settlement of litigation. Id.
See also Crawford, 2008 WL 4724499 at * 9. Finally, the Court finds the award of
attorney’s fees to Plaintiffs’ counsel to be reasonable in light of the complex issues of
law and fact presented, and the parties’ extensive settlement efforts.
Accordingly, and for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties’
Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement of Claims (Doc. No. 26) and APPROVES the
parties’ proposed settlement agreement. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this
action for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this Order.
Plaintiffs’ claims are, therefore, dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear
their own costs and the fees to be paid as set forth in the settlement agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Nancy A. Vecchiarelli
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Date: May 16, 2016

-7-