TRAVIS v. ASOCIACION PUERTORRIQUENOS EN MARCHA, INC., No. 2:2018cv05015 - Document 48 (E.D. Pa. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 7/20/20. 7/20/20 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

Download PDF

TRAVIS v. ASOCIACION PUERTORRIQUENOS EN MARCHA, INC. Doc. 48 Case 2:18-cv-05015-GJP Document 48 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SHANELL TRAVIS ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-05015 Plaintiff, v. ASOCIACION PUERTORRIQUENOS EN MARCHA, INC., Defendant. PAPPERT, J. July 20, 2020 MEMORANDUM Shanell Travis sued her former employer, Asociacion Puertorriquenos en Marcha, Inc., under the Fair Labor Standards Act for allegedly failing to pay her and other employees overtime wages. Thirty-three other similarly situated employees d C c a c ac . The parties reached a settlement and now move for a . The Court grants the Motion and approves the settlement. I Asociacion is a nonprofit foster care organization. See (Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs worked for Asociacion as case managers. (Id. at ¶¶ 9 10.) This position did not require a a d or any other specialized academic training. See (id. at ¶¶ 12 14). Asociacion paid case managers salaries of around $44,000 and classified them as exempt FLSA a a da , meaning they did not receive any extra pay if they worked more than forty hours in a week. (Mot. for Approval 3, ECF No. 46); see (Compl. ¶¶ 16 17). Plaintiffs argued that the exemption Asociacion invoked applied a ca d c a c , 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:18-cv-05015-GJP Document 48 Filed 07/20/20 Page 2 of 6 which they claim the case manager position did not. (Mot. for Approval 4.) Asociacion countered that the exemption did a a d a d b ca Pa ca ac c ad a bac ca c . (Id.) After the Court conditionally certified the FLSA collective, the parties engaged in discovery and participated in two mediation sessions. See (id.) During the second session, the parties reached a settlement, which they now ask the Court to approve. See (id.) II A T FLSA establishes federal minimum-wage, maximum-hour, and overtime a a a ca b d db c ac . Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 69 (2013). Parties may settle FLSA claims by reaching a compromise supervised by either the Department of Labor or by a district court. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), (c); Kraus v. PA Fit II, LLC, 155 F. Supp. 3d 516, 522 (E.D. Pa. 2016). Although the Third Circuit has not addressed whether parties may settle FLSA claims without court approval, most district courts in this Circuit deem court approval necessary. See Howard v. Phila. Housing Auth., 197 F. Supp.3d 773, 776 (E.D. Pa. 2016). Before approving a settlement, a district court must find that the settlement resolves a bona fide dispute c a [FLSA ] c a , a ac a a da cab a a . Id. at 777 (internal quotations c a omitted). For example, a settlement resolves a bona fide dispute a ab c , c a bac 2 a a , a a ac a d . Case 2:18-cv-05015-GJP Document 48 Filed 07/20/20 Page 3 of 6 Id. (internal quotations and alterations omitted). If the settlement resolves a bona fide dispute, a court then asks whether (1) ( ), a d (2) t is fair and reasonable for the a FLSA a ac . Id. (footnote omitted). In FLSA collective actions, courts often consider the nine Girsh factors when deciding whether a settlement is fair and reasonable. See Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975); Kraus, 155 F. Supp. 3d at 523 n.3 (discussing whether and how courts should apply the Girsh factors in FLSA actions). B In approving FLSA settlements, courts may a b adb P c a d da a c a d ca a a ab a . 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); see also Kraus, 155 F. Supp. 3d at 533. a d db c T dC c . Id. (quoting Keller v. T.D. Bank, No. 12-5054, 2014 WL 5591033, at *14 (E.D. Pa. 2014)). This method awards a fixed percentage of the settlement fund to counsel. Id. T a a ab a d the percentage-of- recovery method, courts consider a variety of factors such as (1) whether members of the collective action have raised objections; (2) c a a ca a d efficiency; (3) ; (4) the time plaintiff s counsel devoted to the case; and (5) a a d . Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190, 195 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000). In class or collective actions, courts may also gra a c a a d a d plaintiffs for the services they provided and the risks they incurred during the . . . a . Sullivan v. DB Inv., Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 333 n.65 (3d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). 3 Case 2:18-cv-05015-GJP Document 48 Filed 07/20/20 Page 4 of 6 III Under the proposed settlement, Asociacion will pay $162,000 plus any taxes associated with the settlement payments. (Mot. for Approval 5.) After subtracting $40,500 a a d a d a $5,000 c a a d T a , thirty-four Plaintiffs will share the remaining $116,500. (Id.) A The settlement resolves a bona fide dispute. Asociacion and Plaintiffs dispute ca c a a a d Pa ca FLSA d c a c me mandate. (Id. at 4.) They also contest whether Plaintiffs in fact worked significant overtime hours. See (id. at 3, 9). The settlement resolves those disputes, setting the overtime wages and hours for each Plaintiff. See (Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 45-1). The settlement is fair and reasonable. Although the case is not particularly complex, litigating it would be expensive and time-consuming. Had they not settled, Pa d a d da a A c ac anticipated motions to decertify the collective and for summary judgment. See (Mot. for Approval 10). P a a ab reaction to the settlement all but three have expressly approved and none have objected a a a . See (id. at 10); (Suppl. Mem. Supp. Mot. for Approval, ECF No. 47). That the parties have conducted extensive discovery and held two mediation sessions supports the settlement as well. See (Mot. for Approval 10 11); In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201, 235 36 (3d Cir. 2001). These factors along with the genuine risks of establishing liability, proving damages and maintaining the collective, see (Mot. for Approval 11) convince the Court that the settlement is fair and reasonable. 4 Case 2:18-cv-05015-GJP Document 48 Filed 07/20/20 Page 5 of 6 The settlement also furthers the implementation of the FLSA. Unlike some b FLSA collective settlements, this one lacks a , b ad a a a , d a d c d a . VanOrden v. Lebanon Farms Disposal, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181897 at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2019). Though the agreement bars Plaintiffs from discussing the terms of the settlement with the media, it does not otherwise prevent them from discussing the lawsuit. See (Settlement Agreement ¶ 9); cf. Ogunlana v. Atl. Diagnostic Labs. LLC, No. CV 191545, 2020 WL 1531846, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020). And the release provision pertains only ca a a d a ab a d Ac . (Settlement Agreement ¶ 4.) Because the Complaint alleges facts relevant only to claims for overtime pay, see (Compl. ¶¶ 8 17), the release provision does no more than discharge the claims actually asserted in the case, see Ogunlana, 2020 WL 1531846, at *6. Thus, approving the d a FLSA . B The da a dc a a a d a ab . P a counsel seeks $40,500. See (Mot. for Approval 13). Expenses account for $6,732 of that figure. (Id.) The a $33,768 a c percent of the $162,000 settlement fund. (Id.) N P a d a b c d -one c fees and costs. See (id. at 14); (Suppl. Mem. Supp. Mot. for Approval 1). C experience and skill, the time devoted to the case, the genuine risk of nonpayment and awards in similar cases all add to the reasonableness of the requested fees and costs. See (Santillo Decl. ¶¶ 7 17, 22); (id. Ex. B); cf. Solkoff v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 435 F. S . 3d 646, 658 (E.D. Pa. 2020). A c -c c the fees generated under the lodestar method ($60,476) c 5 ($40,500) a c Case 2:18-cv-05015-GJP Document 48 Filed 07/20/20 Page 6 of 6 are fair and reasonable. See (Mot. for Approval 15 16); (Santillo Decl. ¶¶ 18 22); In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 F.3d 294, 305 07 (3d Cir. 2005). C T a request for a service award of $5,000 is appropriate. As the named plaintiff, she bore the risks of litigation and should be compensated for her role as a public servant. See Sullivan, 667 F.3d at 333 n.65. Travis actively participated in both da a d a b d a . (Mot. for Approval 13.) And a $5,000 award compares favorably with previous service awards. See (id.) (listing cases that approving awards of $7,500 $12,500 as appropriate). An appropriate Order follows. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gerald J. Pappert ________________________ GERALD J. PAPPERT, J. 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.