Alexander v. Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company et al

Filing 26

Memorandum Opinion: For all of the foregoing reasons, the parties' joint motion for approval of the settlement is granted. The claims in plaintiff's complaint are dismissed with prejudice, and this case is closed. (Related Doc. No. 24 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 8/8/2018. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RICHIE ALEXANDER,

PLAINTIFF,
vs.
CONCORD HOSPITALITY
ENTERPRISES COMPANY, et al.,

DEFENDANTS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-1422

JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 7, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and
Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. (Doc. No. 24 [“Mot.”].) Appended to their motion is the
parties’ Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release, which resolves all of plaintiff’s
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and state law.
(Doc. No. 24-1 [“Settlement”].) The Court must now determine whether the settlement
represents a fair resolution of plaintiff’s FLSA claims. For the reasons that follow, the Court
finds that it does, and the settlement is approved.
I. BACKGROUND
In this action, filed on July 6, 2017, plaintiff, Richie Alexander, sought to recover wages
alleged to have been earned by him and owed to him by defendants. He also sought damages in
connection with his allegations of gender discrimination and harassment in violation of Ohio
law. In their answer, defendants denied that plaintiff was entitled to any additional wages,

including any additional overtime compensation, and denied plaintiff’s allegations of gender
discrimination and harassment. (Doc. No. 8 (Answer).)
On October 11, 2017, the Court conducted a telephonic case management conference
with counsel for the parties. During the conference, the Court encouraged counsel to explore the
possibility of settlement. After conducting some initial discovery, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement.
II. 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., No. 06-299-JBC, 2008 WL 4724499, at *2 (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).
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. Brooklyn
Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706, 65 S. Ct. 895, 89 L. Ed. 1296 (1945); Lynn’s Food
Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353-53 (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). Lynn’s Foods, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1533. The second exception, applicable here,
encompasses instances in which federal district courts approve settlement of suits brought in
federal district court pursuant to § 16(b) of the FLSA. Id.

2

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, at *5 (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. 1
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, 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)).

1

In collective actions, of which this case is not, the court should also consider the opinion of counsel and collective
representatives and the reaction of absent collective members. Id.

3

III. ANALYSIS
At the outset, the Court finds that the instant action presented bona fide disputes. Plaintiff
asserts that he was required to work in excess of 40 hours of week, but was not properly
compensated for his time. He further alleges that he was harassed and discrimination against on
the basis of his gender in violation of Ohio statutory law. Defendants insist that plaintiff was paid
in compliance with FLSA regulations and Ohio law, and further deny plaintiff’s allegations of
gender discrimination and harassment. 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.
Having reviewed the terms of the settlement, the Court finds that the settlement
represents a fair and reasonable resolution to bona fide disputes. Further, the Court notes that the
settlement was the result of arms-length negotiations between parties that were represented by
able counsel. As such, the Court finds no risk of fraud or collusion. Additionally, the Court finds
that the award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff’s counsel is reasonable, taking into consideration the
complexity of the case and the fact that a settlement was reached early in the litigation. While the
Court is not in a position to assess the likelihood of success on the merits, as the case was still in
the early stages when settlement was reached, the Court finds that the other relevant factors
weigh in favor of approving the settlement.

4

IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the parties’ joint motion for approval of the settlement is
GRANTED. The claims in plaintiff’s complaint are dismissed with prejudice, and this case is
closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2018
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5