UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Stephanie Frazee, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:22-cv-2198 Vv. Judge Michael H. Watson Conservatory of Piano, Inc., e¢ al., Magistrate Judge Jolson Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Stephanie Frazee (“Plaintiff’) sued Conservatory of Piano, Inc. and Penny L. Popper (collectively “Defendants”) for unpaid overtime wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and analogous state laws. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to properly pay overtime to Plaintiff because Defendant improperly classified her as a salaried employee. /d. The parties have settled Plaintiffs claims and now move for approval of their settlement agreement. ECF No. 10. “As a general rule, employees’ claims under the FLSA are non-waivable and may not be settled without supervision of either the Secretary of Labor or a district court.” Gentrup v. Renovo Servs., LLC, No. 1:07-cv-430,

, at *2 (S.D. Ohio June 24, 2011) (citing Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States,

, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1982)). To approve a

settlement agreement, a court must conclude that it is a “fair, reasonable, and adequate” resolution of a bona fide legal dispute. Intl Union, United Auto, Aerospace, and Agr. Implement Workers of Am. v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

(6th Cir. 2007) (discussing a class action settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23); see also Vigna v. Emery Fed. Credit Union, No. 1:15-cv- 51,

, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2016) (applying the same analysis to an FLSA settlement). Factors relevant to this determination include: (1) the risk of fraud or collusion behind the settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of discovery engaged in by the parties; (4) the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits; and (5) the public interest in settlement. Clevenger v. JMC Mech., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-2639,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2015) (citation omitted). “The court may choose to consider only factors that are relevant to the settlement at hand and may weigh particular factors according to the demands of the case.” Gentrup,

, at *3 (citation omitted). Additionally, the Court must separately assess the reasonableness of any proposed award of attorneys’ fees and costs, even when they are negotiated as part of the settlement. Vigna,

, at *4. After a careful review of the proposed settlement agreement, the Court finds that the settlement agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of a bona fide legal dispute between the parties.

Case No. 2:22-cv-2198 Page 2 of 4

There is a bona fide dispute in this case, as the parties dispute whether Defendant properly categorized Plaintiff as a salaried employee and, as a result, whether it properly paid her overtime. There is no indication that the settlement

was reached by anything other than arms’ length negotiations between counsel. The settlement will avoid expensive litigation for both sides, including class certification motions, remaining discovery, dispositive motions, trial, and possible appeals. Further, the parties represent that they had an appropriate opportunity to consider the risks and costs of continued litigation. The parties represent that Plaintiff will receive a $5,000 payment, which represents both her alleged unpaid wages and liquidated damages. This payment is reasonable. See Waggoner v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 5:14-CV-1626,

, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 29, 2016) (approving a settlement with

recovery of approximately 94% of alleged lost wages); Vigna,

, at *4—5 (approving a settlement that represented approximately 55% of allegedly owed wages). Moreover, attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $6,000 are reasonable in this case. See Pittman v. Matalco (U.S.), Inc., No. 4:18CV203,

, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2018) (collecting cases where the attorney’s fees exceeded the award to the plaintiff). The parties’ joint motion, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED, including its request for attorney’s fees and costs, to settle the Plaintiffs FLSA claims. The settlement agreement is APPROVED. The Court DISMISSES the case WITH PREJUDICE

Case No. 2:22-cv-2198 Page 3 of 4

but retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. | . i f MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:22-cv-2198 Page 4 of 4