Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BRADLEY MILLER, KAYLA KILPATRICK,

and BLAKE BUMANN,

on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Case No. 23-cv-2597-JPG

Plaintiffs,

v.

ST. CLAIR COUNTY,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to approve a settlement

agreement (Doc. 126), which they have submitted to the Court but have not filed. The plaintiffs

are employed as Telecommunicators who manage 911 calls for the County’s Emergency

Management Administration (“EMA”), a subdivision of the County. They are assigned to work

eighty hours in a two-week period such that one week they work more than forty hours and one

week they work less. Under the Work Week Policy, the County paid overtime premiums only

for hours worked over eighty hours in a two-week period even when employees worked over

forty hours in a one-week period. The Work Week Policy was consistent with the collective

bargaining agreement governing the parties’ relationship, but the plaintiffs allege in this case that

it violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (Count I) and the

Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 ILCS 105/1-15 (Count II). The proposed

settlement agreement focuses on the Work Week Policy, but its broad release covers other

disputes brought in this case.

It is well-established that a party may not bargain away his rights under the FLSA to

certain wage payment rates; this would defeat the statute’s purpose of guaranteeing those wage

rates. See D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 114 (1946); Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil,

324 U.S. 697, 703-04 (1945). There is the same danger where parties settle claims; the end

result may effectively circumvent the FLSA’s requirements. For this reason, FLSA cases can

only be settled under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor under 29 U.S.C. § 216(c) or by a

stipulated judgment after a Court scrutinizes the proposed settlement for fairness. Lynn’s Food

Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353-54 (11th Cir. 1982), cited with approval by

Walton v. United Consumers Club, 786 F.2d 303, 306 (7th Cir. 1986); see Koch v. Jerry W.

Bailey Trucking, 51 F.4th 748, 752 (7th Cir. 2022); Gratton v. Cielo, Inc., No. 23-CV-1647-

BHL, 2024 WL 3594653, at *1 (E.D. Wis. July 31, 2024). Since the Department of Labor is not

involved in this case, it can only be settled by a stipulated judgment after Court scrutiny of the

proposed settlement. In its review of the proposed settlement, the Court will examine (1)

whether the proposed settlement brings resolution to a bona fide dispute as opposed to simply

accomplishing a waiver of statutory rights, (2) whether the proposed settlement is a reasonable

compromise of the issues in dispute, (3) whether the proposed settlement was obtained fairly and

not by overreaching by the defendant, and (4) any other matter relevant to the fairness of the

settlement. See Lynn’s Food, 679 F.2d at 1354.

As a preliminary matter, the Court is uncomfortable evaluating a settlement agreement

that is not in the record at all. To remedy this, the Court ORDERS that, within seven days, the

parties file the complete settlement agreement under seal as an exhibit to the pending motion for

approval. Whether maintaining the settlement agreement under seal is appropriate is a matter the

Court leaves to another day. See Gratton, 2024 WL 3594653 at *3.

As for the fee award, to evaluate a fee award in the settlement of an FLSA case, the Court

uses the lodestar method. Koch v. Jerry W. Bailey Trucking, Inc., 51 F.4th 748, 753 (7th Cir.

2022). The lodestar method involves “multiplying the number of hours the attorney reasonably

expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Mathur v. Board of Trustees of S. Ill.

Univ., 317 F.3d 738, 742 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433

(1983)). The Court can then adjust the total amount based on various factors specific to the

litigation, including but not limited to the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney, the

length of her relationship with the client, and the “undesirability” of the case. Mathur, 317 F.3d

at 742 & n. 1.

The documents submitted in support of the fee award requested by the plaintiffs’

attorneys are not detailed enough to assess whether any adjustments are warranted under the

lodestar adjustment factors. The Court therefore RESERVES RULING on the motion for

approval of settlement and will set a telephone status conference by separate order to inquire

further into the attorney’s fee award

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 17, 2026

s/ J. Phil Gilbert

J. PHIL GILBERT

DISTRICT JUDGE