Miller et al v. St. Clair County Emergency Management Administration

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,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. CLAIR COUNTY,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-2597-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to approve a settlement
agreement (Doc. 126), which they have filed under seal. The plaintiffs are employed as
Telecommunicators who manage 911 calls for St. Clair 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 where 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
Case 3:23-cv-02597-JPG Document 133 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
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 with the approval of the Secretary of the Department 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 after the Court scrutinizes 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.
Considering all the factors, the Court finds the settlement is fair. There is a bona fide
dispute between the parties about how to implement the FLSA and the IMWL for workers not
assigned to a traditional 40-hour work week. The Court further believes this settlement is a
reasonable resolution of the issues in dispute. Factors weighing in favor of reasonableness
include that the settlement obtains all of the wages the plaintiffs claim based on the Work Week
Policy, although it does not include an award of liquidated damages. It also strikes the Court that
Case 3:23-cv-02597-JPG Document 133 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
underpayment of overtime wages was not in bad faith but instead was consistent with the
defendant’s honest belief about the proper way to calculated overtime pay. Additionally, the
defendants began to pay overtime based on a 40-hour work week very soon after this lawsuit was
filed. All parties were represented by experienced counsel who appear to have negotiated this
settlement at arm’s length and in good faith. For these reasons, the Court approves the amount
negotiated to compensate the collective action members as well as the named plaintiffs.
Additionally, the Court approves the amount of attorney’s fees claimed. To evaluate a
fee award in the settlement of an FLSA case, the Court uses the lodestar method. Koch, 51 F.4th
at 753. 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 Court has reviewed the itemized billing summary recently filed by the plaintiffs and
finds that the amount requested—$80,000—is reasonable. Although the award is more than
twice the total amount awarded to the plaintiffs, the Court believes it is important to well
compensate attorneys who work to vindicate workers’ rights to appropriate, lawful wages. The
Court notes that the County, which will end up footing the bill, has approved the attorney’s fees
award. The Court is further mindful that the plaintiffs had no success challenging the Break
Policy, but the huge cut in the approximate lodestar total ($125,000) to $80,000 fairly
compensates the plaintiffs’ counsel for their limited success. Finally, the affidavit of a local
Case 3:23-cv-02597-JPG Document 133 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
counsel practicing in the same field supports the reasonableness of the hourly rate charged. For
these reasons, the Court will approve the attorney’s fees sought in the motion.
In sum, the Court GRANTS the motion for approval of the Settlement Agreement (Doc.
129), APPROVES the proposed settlement agreement (Doc. 129), and DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to enter judgment of dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 6, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-02597-JPG Document 133 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>