Cashiola v. Risha
Filing
15
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court approves the settlement. The claims in plaintiffs complaint are dismissed with prejudice, and this case is closed. The Court retains jurisdiction over this action to enforce the terms of the settlement. Judge Sara Lioi on 12/5/2019. (D,N)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MOLLY CASHIOLA,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
FRANCOIS RISHA d/b/a FRANCOIS
LOUNGE.,
DEFENDANT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:19-cv-922
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
On April 24, 2019, Plaintiff Molly Cashiola brought suit against defendant Francois
Risha d/b/a Francois Lounge, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29
U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and Ohio law. (Doc. No. 1 (Complaint [“Compl.”].) Now before the
Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement. (Doc. No. 14-1 [“Joint Motion”].)
Because the Court finds that the settlement represents a fair resolution of plaintiff’s claims, the
Joint Motion is granted and the settlement is approved.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that she worked, at all times relevant to this action, as an exotic dancer in
defendant’s Akron, Ohio-based gentlemen’s club. Plaintiff alleges that defendant misclassified
her as an independent contractor rather than an employee during the time she purportedly
performed in defendant’s establishment. Arising from the alleged misclassification, plaintiff
maintains that she was not properly compensated under the FLSA and Ohio law. Defendant
asserts that plaintiff was properly classified as an independent contractor and denies violating
any wage and hour laws associated with plaintiff’s performances at the club. Defendant also
insists that plaintiff inflated the number of hours she worked for defendant.
In an effort to facilitate resolution, the parties participated in ongoing settlement
discussions and arms-length negotiations. The parties subsequently entered into a written
settlement (Doc. No. 14-2 [“Settlement Agreement”]), and filed the present motion to approve
the 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., Civil Action 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)). 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. Crawford, 2008 WL 4724499, at *3 (citing Int’l
Union, United Auto., Aerospace, & 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)).
III. ANALYSIS
At the outset, the Court finds that the divergent views of the facts and the law presented
bona fide disputes that, had the parties not reached settlement, would have necessitated
resolution by the Court and/or a jury. The Joint Motion confirms the same. As set forth above,
the parties sharply disagree as to the proper classification of plaintiff with respect to her work at
defendant’s club, and the parties further disagree over the number of hours plaintiff actually
3
worked. In fact, there is a factual dispute as to whether plaintiff ever performed in defendant’s
club, and whether the money plaintiff allegedly received from defendant’s customers exceeded
defendant’s alleged minimum wage obligation.
Having reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 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.
With respect to the monetary awards to plaintiff, the Court notes that the payments
represent damages exceeding what defendant maintains club records would support but less than
what a reasonable juror might have awarded if plaintiff prevailed on all of her legal claims and
factual allegations. As for the award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff’s counsel, the Court finds that
the award is reasonable, taking into consideration the fact that a settlement was reached early in
the litigation and the successful outcome provides substantial relief to plaintiff. 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 Court approves the settlement. The claims in
plaintiff’s complaint are dismissed with prejudice, and this case is closed. The Court retains
jurisdiction over this action to enforce the terms of the settlement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2019
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?