# Stephen-Whitaker v. Gasper Township Board of Trustees

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · January 13, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10379329

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** January 13, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10379329

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

CHARITY STEPHEN-WHITAKER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:20-cv-461

vs.

GASPER COUNTY BOARD District Judge Michael J. Newman
OF TRUSTEES, et al., Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY
JANUARY 20, 2022 ON THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION IN THEIR PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Doc. No. 18)
______________________________________________________________________________

This civil case is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion for the Court to approve their
proposed settlement agreement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Doc. No. 18.1
Section 1(h) of the agreement forbids Plaintiff and her attorney from disclosing:
to any person or any entity . . . the terms of the settlement, the terms
of this Release, the claims, the facts surrounding the claims, and any
tape recordings or other documentation of any type that in any
manner relates to the claims or any of the facts surrounding the
claims, all of which shall remain strictly confidential . . . .

Doc. No. 18 at PageID 82. Confidentiality provisions in FLSA settlement agreements are subject
to judicial scrutiny because “there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to settlement
agreements in these cases.” Zego v. Meridian-Henderson, No. 2-15-CV-3098, 2016 WL 4449648,
at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2016); see also Key v. FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., No 2:21-cv-
773, 2021 WL 5240236, at *1–2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2021). In certain instances, confidentiality

1 The parties have also filed an identical joint motion to approve their proposed settlement agreement. Doc.
No. 19.
provisions in FLSA settlement agreements may “thwart the public’s independent interest in
assuring that employees’ wages are fair.” Zego, 2016 WL 4449648, at *1 (quoting Rodriguez v.
El Pollo Regio, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-2276, 2012 WL 5506130, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2012)). The
parties’ joint motion overlooks or ignores the potential issues created by the confidentiality

provision in their proposed settlement agreement. Thus, the parties are ORDERED to file
supplemental briefing, with supporting caselaw, by January 20, 2022 addressing why the Court
should find the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable even though it contains a
confidentiality provision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 13, 2022 /s Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10379329. Public record. Not legal advice.