The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
MISTY FARMER, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
PLAINTIFFS
v. CIVIL NO. 21-3027-CDC
BOONE COUNTY INDEPENDENT LIVING, INC. DEFENDANT
ORDER OF APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL
On May 17, 2022, the parties fully executed a Settlement Agreement and Release after
consenting to this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (ECF No. 46) and after
reassignment to the undersigned on April 21, 2022. Now before the Court for consideration is a
Joint Motion to Dismiss and Approval of Settlement (ECF No. 50). The parties have provided the
Settlement Agreement and Release for the Court’s in camera review in connection with
consideration of the Joint Motion.
Plaintiff Misty Farmer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated as Direct Care
Aides and/or support staff providing direct care for patients in their homes, alleges their employer,
Boone County Independent Living, Inc., failed to pay them proper wages for all hours worked,
including compensable “down time” (sleep time described as hours between 10pm and 5am spent
in the Defendant’s patients’ home), as well as mileage reimbursements owed, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act, Ark Code Ann. § 11-4-201, et seq. The action was conditionally certified by U.S. District
Judge Timothy L. Brooks as a collective action (ECF No. 23), and approximately 73 individuals
joined Plaintiff in the action. (ECF Nos. 24-30, 32, 34, 36- 45). Defendant denied that any Plaintiff
was unpaid earned wages or denied a mileage reimbursement. (ECF No. 7).
Before approving an FLSA settlement agreement, a court must determine that “the
litigation involves a bona fide dispute and that the proposed settlement is fair and equitable to all
parties.” Boland v. Baue Funeral Home Co., 2015 WL 7300507, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 18, 2015)
(cleaned up). “A settlement is bona fide if it reflects a reasonable compromise over issues actually
in dispute, since employees may not waive their entitlement to minimum wage and overtime pay
under [the] FLSA.” King v. Raineri Constr., LLC, 2015 WL 631253, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 12,
2015) (citing D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 115 (1946)). If the Court finds there is a
bona fide dispute, it must next determine that the agreement purporting to settle that dispute is fair
and reasonable to all parties. Such determination usually involves considering:
the stage of the litigation and amount of discovery exchanged, the experience of
counsel, the probability of plaintiff’s success on the merits, any ‘overreaching’ by
the employer in the settlement negotiations, and whether the settlement was the
product of arm’s length negotiations between represented parties based on the
merits of the case.
Id. (citing Carrillo v. Dandan, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 3d 124, 132-33 (D.D.C. 2014)).
The Court is persuaded that bona fide disputes existed in this case. The parties
fundamentally disagreed on the central issue of Plaintiffs’ entitlement to wages related to down
time or sleep time during evening hours spent at patients’ homes, and as to Defendant’s alleged
policies and/or cap on mileage reimbursements. The parties mediated the case with W. Jackson
Wisdom, a Texas lawyer who is Board Certified in Labor and Employment law in the State of
Texas who aided them in resolving these disputes. The Court is also satisfied that the Plaintiffs’
individual settlements are fair and reasonable, as is the method for paying Plaintiffs their individual
sums. All parties were represented by counsel, and counsel achieved a sizeable settlement based
on the merits of Plaintiff's FLSA claims while considering the strengths of the defense, and the
reality of the costs of continuing litigation through trial. Having reviewed the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and Release, the Court is convinced the settlement is the result of arms’
length negotiations, and the total amount recovered for the Plaintiffs represents a reasonable and
not de minimis recovery for them after balancing the expense and uncertainty of proceeding with
this action against Plaintiffs’ most readily provable damages. Additionally, the parties reached a
separate, confidential settlement related to Plaintiffs’ recoverable attorneys’ fees and costs with
Plaintiffs’ counsel representing to this Court that “no contingency fee” will be assessed against the
“Gross Settlement Amount” reflected in the parties’ Settlement Agreement and Release. Thus, no
issues remain for the Court’s adjudication.
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the parties’ proposed settlement
agreement should be, and hereby is, approved as fair and reasonable, the Joint Motion to Dismiss
and Approval of Settlement (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Complaint DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This
Court retains jurisdiction to vacate this order and to reopen the action upon cause shown that the
parties’ settlement has not been completed and that a party whishes this Court specifically to
enforce the settlement agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23 day of May 2022.
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE