Speer v. California TV Maxair ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 MARK SPEER, No. 2:20-CV-00034 WBS KJN 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT 15 CALIFORNIA TV MAXAIR, HEARTLAND MEDIA, KHSL, KNVN, 16 Defendants. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Plaintiff Mark Speer filed this action against 20 defendants California TV Maxair, Heartland Media, KHSL, and KNVN 21 (jointly “defendants”) alleging various claims under state and 22 federal wage and hour laws. Separately, plaintiff filed a pro se 23 administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity 24 Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair 25 Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), and a separate administrative 26 complaint, with the assistance of counsel, with the DFEH, 27 alleging that plaintiff was wrongfully terminated. Before the 28 1 court is plaintiff’s unopposed motion for approval of a proposed 2 settlement of both his individual wage and hour claims and his 3 individual employment law claims. (Mot. at 2 (Docket No. 4).) 4 I. Factual Background 5 Defendants operated as a television broadcasting 6 facility where plaintiff worked as a control booth operator. 7 (Compl. ¶ 1 (Docket No. 1).) According to the complaint, 8 plaintiff was required to continue his work without rest or meal 9 breaks. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that when he attempted to leave 10 to have lunch in the company lunchroom, where he could continue 11 to monitor the signal on screens in that room, he was told he 12 could not leave the control room. (Id.) Overall, plaintiff 13 contends that he was treated as though he had received unpaid 14 meal breaks and was not paid overtime wages. (Id. ¶ 12-14.) 15 Plaintiff filed suit individually, and on behalf of all 16 similarly situated employees, alleging the following causes of 17 action: (1) failure to pay wages in violation of the Federal 18 Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203; (2) failure to pay overtime 19 wages in violation of the California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 and 20 California Wage Order No. 11; (3) failure to pay statutory wages 21 for failure to provide meal breaks in violation of California 22 Wage Order No. 11; (4) failure to pay timely wages in violation 23 of the California Labor Code § 204; and (5) failure to pay wages 24 due at termination of employment in violation of California Labor 25 Code § 203. (See generally Compl.) 26 Separately, plaintiff’s EEOC and DFEH complaints allege 27 that plaintiff, who is older than 40, was wrongfully terminated 28 because of his age and/or disability, was denied a reasonable 1 accommodation, and/or was subject to retaliation. (Mot at 4.) 2 Plaintiff’s motion before this court is for settlement 3 of his individual claims only. Under the settlement agreement, 4 defendants will pay plaintiff $15,000. (See Mot. at 5.) 5 Plaintiff, in turn, will release all his individual claims of any 6 kind, including the employment law claims. (Mot. at 2.) The 7 agreement does not prejudice the rights of any other employee to 8 bring wage and hour claims. (Mot. at 2.) 9 II. Discussion 10 Claims for unpaid wages under the Federal Labor 11 Standards Act (FLSA) may be waived or otherwise settled only “if 12 settlement is supervised by the Secretary of Labor or approved by 13 a district court.” Selk v. Pioneers Mem’l Healthcare Dist., 159 14 F. Supp. 3d 1164, 1172 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Lynn’s Food 15 Stores, Inc. v. United States ex rel. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Emp’t 16 Standards Admin., Wage & Hour Div., 679 F.2d 1350, 1352–53 (11th 17 Cir. 1982); Meza v. 317 Amsterdam Corp., 14–CV–9007 (VSB), 2015 18 WL 9161791, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2015)). “The Ninth Circuit has 19 not established criteria for district courts to consider in 20 determining whether a FLSA settlement should be approved.” 21 Beidleman v. City of Modesto, No. 1:16-CV-01100 DAD SKO, 2018 WL 22 1305713, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2018) (citing Dunn v. Teachers 23 Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., No. 13–CV–05456–HSG, 2016 WL 153266, 24 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016)). District courts in the Ninth 25 Circuit have instead “normally applied a widely-used standard 26 adopted by the Eleventh Circuit, looking to whether the 27 settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide 28 dispute.” Id. (citing Dunn, 2016 WL 153266, at *3; Lynn’s Food 1 Stores, 679 F.2d at 1352–53); see also Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 2 1172. 3 A. Bona Fide Dispute 4 “A bona fide dispute exists when there are legitimate 5 questions about ‘the existence and extent of Defendant’s FLSA 6 liability.’” Id. “If there is no question that the FLSA 7 entitles plaintiffs to the compensation they seek, then a court 8 will not approve a settlement because to do so would allow the 9 employer to avoid the full cost of complying with the statute.” 10 Id. (citing Socias v. Vornado Realty L.P., 297 F.R.D. 38, 41 11 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); Hogan v. Allstate Beverage Co., Inc., 821 F. 12 Supp. 2d 1274, 1282 (M.D. Ala. 2011)). 13 The court finds that this case reflects a bona fide 14 dispute between the parties over defendants’ FLSA liability. 15 Plaintiff alleges that he was required to stay on duty at all 16 times, and that he was never provided any meal or rest periods 17 during which he was relieved of all duty. (Mot. at 2.) 18 Plaintiff contends that he nonetheless was treated as though he 19 had received unpaid meal breaks, which resulted in plaintiff 20 working half an hour a day for no pay. (Id.) Defendants contest 21 plaintiff’s account “in almost every respect, and deny that 22 Plaintiff was unlawfully denied meal and rest breaks.” (Mot. at 23 3.) 24 Further, on a representative level, it is uncertain 25 whether plaintiff could obtain class certification because “there 26 are not a large number of employees within his subdivision that 27 are similarly situated to him.” (Decl. of Joshua L. Watson ¶ 4 28 (Docket No. 4-2).) 1 These issues raise legitimate questions as to whether 2 defendants are liable under the FLSA. The proposed settlement 3 thus satisfies the bona-fide-dispute requirement. See Selk, 159 4 F. Supp. 3d at 1174. 5 B. Fair and Reasonable Settlement 6 A fair and reasonable FLSA settlement is one that 7 “reflects ‘a reasonable compromise over [disputed] issues.’” 8 McKeen-Chaplin v. Franklin Am. Mortg. Co., No. C 10-5243 SBA, 9 2012 WL 6629608, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012) (citing Lynn’s 10 Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354). The court finds that the 11 proposed settlement reflects such a compromise. 12 First, the settlement amount adequately reflects the 13 value of plaintiff’s FLSA claim. Plaintiff’s counsel reviewed 14 the payroll history to calculate the maximum recovery that 15 plaintiff could receive. (Mot. at 4-5.) Counsel’s calculation 16 considered plaintiff’s rate of pay, days per week of employment, 17 period of employment within the relevant statutes of limitation, 18 allegedly unpaid wages, and statutory wages and liquidated 19 damages under the relevant law. (Id.) If successful, 20 plaintiff’s maximum recovery under state and federal wage and 21 hour laws would total $10,120. (Watson Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s 22 maximum recovery for only his FLSA claim would total $5,060. 23 (Id.) The proposed settlement of $15,000 thus “obtains all 24 available relief for Mr. Speer, including all money available 25 under the FLSA.” (Id. ¶ 7.) 26 The settlement also reflects a reasonable compromise 27 over plaintiff’s employment law claims. Subtracting plaintiff’s 28 maximum recovery for wage and hour law claims from the settlement WAI 2 UNUM ST VV DOING IN RVVUETIOCTIL OO FIR IIe AYO OV VI 1 amount, the settlement awards plaintiff $4,880 for plaintiff's 2 employment law claims. After reviewing the facts related to 3 these claims, and after evaluating both the potential for 4 defendants to successfully claim that the termination was 5 justified and the potential for plaintiff to successfully claim 6 | that the alleged justification was a mere pretext, plaintiff 7 contends that the claim has an “existent but minimal settlement 8 value.” (Watson Decl. © 5.) Accordingly, the settlement amount 9 | of $4,880 is a fair reflection of the value of this claim. 10 Because the settlement amount is a reasonable compromise over 11 disputed issues, the court finds that the settlement is fair and 12 reasonable. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s unopposed 14 motion for approval of the proposed settlement (Docket No. 4) be, 15 and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The parties shall execute the 16 settlement forthwith and promptly thereafter request dismissal of 17 this action. 18 | Dated: May 1, 2020 tleom ah. A. be—~ 19 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28