The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MARK MULLETT, et al., ) CASE NO. 1:19-cv-1002
)
)
PLAINTIFFS, ) JUDGE SARA LIOI
)
vs. )
) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
) ORDER
ASHTABULA COUNTY BOARD OF )
COMMISSIONERS, et al., )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
Now before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for approval of a settlement. (Doc. No.
23 [“Joint Motion”].) Because the Court finds that the settlement represents a fair resolution of
plaintiffs’ claims, the Joint Motion is granted and the settlement is approved.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Mark Mullett and Sheri Allen, were employed, at all times relevant to this
action, by defendant Ashtabula County Sherriff’s Office as K-9 Handlers. (Doc. No. 10-2
(Second Amended Complaint [“SAC”]) ¶¶ 3, 4, 8.)1 As part of their duties, plaintiffs were
responsible for the training, care, and maintenance of their assigned K-9 Officers. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 11.)
Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to pay them overtime for the time they spent outside of
work caring form their K-9 Officers, and failed to include their non-discretionary bonuses in
their regular rate of pay. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 19.) In failing to do so, plaintiffs maintain that defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. Defendants deny that
1 While this matter was pled as a collective action, plaintiffs did not pursue conditional certification.
they violated the FLSA and affirmatively assert that some or all of plaintiffs’ claims are barred
by the applicable statute of limitations. (See generally Doc. No. 15 (Answer to SAC).)2
On October 9, 2019, defendants produced the time and pay records of plaintiffs “in order
to expedite settlement discussions.” (Joint Motion at 1363.) Thereafter, the parties engaged in
settlement discussions that culminated in the settlement agreement presently before the Court.
(Id.; see Doc. No. 24 (Confidential General Settlement and Release Agreement [“Settlement
Agreement”]).) On January 31, 2020, the parties filed the present Joint Motion.
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 Cty.
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).
2 Specifically, by way of an affirmative defense, defendants maintain that plaintiffs are impermissibly seeking to
recover wages that were allegedly earned more than 2 years before filing suit. (Answer to SAC, Affirmative Defense
3.)
3 All page numbers refer to the page identification number generated by the Court’s electronic docketing system.
2
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.
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. Grp. 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
3
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 disagree as to whether plaintiffs were properly compensated for any and all overtime
worked, whether their general rate of pay was properly calculated, and whether any or all of
plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred.
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 plaintiffs, the Court notes that the payments
represent substantially all unpaid overtime and liquidated damages alleged by plaintiffs. As for
the award of attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ 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 virtually complete relief to plaintiffs. 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
plaintiffs’ SAC are dismissed with prejudice, and this case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2020 i we
HONORABLE S LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE