IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 

DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES BRAND, BARRY FARMER, 

MARK GRAHAM, KEVIN JACKSON, 

MICHAEL JACKSON, JOSE VIGIL, and 

CHRISTOPHER WOODARD, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

COMCAST CORPORATION and 

COMCAST CABLE 

COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, 

LLC, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 12-cv-1122 

Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim 

PARTIES’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION FOR 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs James Brand, Barry Farmer, Mark Graham, Kevin Jackson, Michael Jackson, 

Jose Vigil, and Christopher Woodard (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Comcast Corporation and 

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC (“Defendants” or “Comcast”) 

(collectively with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, 

respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Joint Motion for Approval 

of Settlement (“Motion”) and further state as follows: 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On February 16, 2012, Named Plaintiff James Brand filed a class and collective action 

complaint alleging that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 

201, et seq., the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 ILCS 105/1, et seq., and the 

Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (“IWPCA”), 820 ILCS 115/1, et seq. Brand alleged 

that Comcast failed to pay him and other similarly-situated hourly, non-exempt cable line 

technicians all earned wages for all overtime work Comcast required them to perform before the 

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:8919
2 

start and after the end of their scheduled shifts, during meal breaks, and while “on call.”. See 

Dkt. No. 1.1

 

In September 2012, the Court conditionally certified an FLSA collective action of cable 

line technicians employed at Comcast’s South Chicago facility since September 26, 2009. (Dkt. 

No. 56). After the opt-in period, Plaintiff amended the complaint to join as individuals the cable 

line technicians who opted into the suit and removed the collective and class allegations (Dkt. 

No. 119), and the case proceeded through the close of discovery. The parties’ extensive 

discovery included the following: (a) the exchange of Rule 26(a) disclosures; (b) the exchange of 

written interrogatories, including interrogatories to each of the Plaintiffs; (c) the exchange of 

thousands of pages of written discovery, including production of electronically stored 

information (“ESI”) in the form of data from Comcast’s timekeeping and work routing software; 

(d) the depositions of each of the seven Plaintiffs; and (e) the depositions of twelve members of 

Defendants’ management. 

Following discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment on each of the seven 

Plaintiffs’ claims, which the Court granted on September 28, 2015. (Dkt. No. 222). Thereafter, 

Plaintiffs moved the Court for reconsideration. (Dkt. Nos. 226, 228). In their motion, Plaintiffs 

did not seek reconsideration of the Court’s ruling as to their meal break and “on call” claims and 

sought only to revive their claims regarding uncompensated pre- and post-shift work. On 

February 25, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part, holding that Plaintiffs 

demonstrated material fact disputes as to their claims concerning their unpaid pre- and post-shift 

work. (Dkt. No. 238). As a result, on March 16, 2016, the Court set a trial date for November 1, 

2016, as well as deadlines for associated pre-trial proceedings. (Dkt. No. 240). 

 

1

 Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on July 3, 2012, a second amended complaint on Dec. 7, 

2012, and a third amended complaint on March 10, 2014. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 66, 119). 

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:8920
3 

On May 25, 2016, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation supervised by private 

mediator Michael E. Dickstein of Dickstein Dispute Resolution/MEDiate. With the mediator’s 

assistance, the Parties agreed to settle their claims. 

II. STANDARD GOVERNING MOTIONS TO APPROVE FLSA SETTLEMENTS 

In the Seventh Circuit, settlements of FLSA claims must be approved by a Court of 

competent jurisdiction. See, e.g., Walton v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 786 F.2d 303, 306 (7th 

Cir. 1986) (citing Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 

1982)); Ladegaard v. Hard Rock Concrete Cutters, Inc., No. 00 C 5755, 2001 WL 1403007, at 

*6 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 7, 2001). An employee may compromise a claim under the FLSA pursuant to 

a court-authorized settlement of an action alleging a violation of the FLSA. E.g. Lynn’s Food 

Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1355. When reviewing a proposed FLSA settlement, the district court 

must scrutinize the settlement for fairness and decide whether the proposed settlement is a 

“fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Id. at 1353, 

1355. If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit reflects a reasonable compromise over issues, 

such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages that are actually in dispute, the court may 

approve the settlement “in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” 

Id. at 1354.  

III. ARGUMENT 

The settlement reached by the Parties represents a fair, just and reasonable resolution of 

the claims alleged by Plaintiffs under the FLSA and any remaining disputes between the 

Parties. The agreement reached is the result of extensive negotiations between the Parties to 

resolve this matter. The Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length by experienced counsel 

concerning bona fide disputes between their clients.

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:8921
4 

A. Bona Fide Disputes Exist 

The settlement of the instant action involves a bona fide dispute. Plaintiffs alleged that 

they were owed overtime for time worked before and after their shifts in excess of 40 hours per 

week. Defendants denied that any Plaintiff was owed any overtime wages. 

In granting reconsideration of Plaintiffs’ pre- and post-shift claims, this Court found that 

disputed fact questions were present. (Dkt. No. 238). Thus, the Parties face the prospect of an 

imminent trial on claims for uncompensated overtime for seven cable line technicians. Had any 

Plaintiff prevailed at trial, Defendants would be faced with a monetary verdict in favor of 

Plaintiff, as well as an obligation to pay legal fees and costs incurred by that Plaintiff in 

addition to their own fees and costs. If Defendants prevailed at trial, Plaintiffs would not 

recover any damages or attorneys’ fees or costs, and Defendants would seek the recovery of 

certain statutory costs. 

B. The Settlement is Fair and Reasonable 

In determining whether a settlement is fair and reasonable, courts have considered nonexclusive factors such as: “(1) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (2) 

the reaction of the Plaintiffs to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceeding and the amount of 

discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing 

damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the action through the trial; (7) the ability of the 

defendants to withstand a larger judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement 

fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement 

fund in light of all the risks of litigation.” Butler v. American Cable & Telephone, LLC, No. 09 

CV 5336, 2011 WL 4729789, at *9 n.9 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2011). 

The Parties’ settlement is fair and reasonable and meets all applicable factors considered 

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:8922
5 

by courts. The settlement appropriately factored in the complexity, risk, expense, and likely 

duration of the litigation. See Exhibit A to Motion (Settlement Agreement and Release) § 2. 

Plaintiffs recognized the risks inherent in proceeding with the litigation in light of the Court’s 

prior ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants for all claims by Plaintiffs, as 

well as Defendants’ arguments on the merits of the claims. Defendants recognized their potential 

exposure should the Parties proceed with trial. All of the Plaintiffs actively participated in the 

mediation, and the overall reaction of the Plaintiffs to the settlement has been overwhelmingly 

positive. 

Moreover, the settlement is appropriate at this stage of the proceedings and given the 

amount of discovery completed. As set forth above, the Parties have engaged in extensive 

litigation dating back to 2012. Aside from Plaintiffs’ independent investigation, the Parties 

exchanged Rule 26(a) disclosures; exchanged written interrogatories; conducted depositions of 

nineteen individuals, including each of the Plaintiffs and twelve members of Defendants’ 

management; and exchanged thousands of pages of written discovery, including voluminous 

production of Defendants’ written policies and procedures, emails and other electronically stored 

information (ESI) in the form of data from Comcast’s timekeeping and work routing software. 

The Parties thus had sufficient information to assess the risks of assessing liability and damages; 

indeed, the next step in the litigation was preparation for trial. 

Additionally, the settlement is well within the range of possible recovery. As in all wage 

and hour claims, the nature and amount of recoverable damages was uncertain. Even if a trier of 

fact ultimately found liability, which was far from certain, a wide range of possible damages 

existed depending on factors including, but not limited to, the amount and frequency of overtime 

work performed, any alleged set-offs for overpayments, the applicable statute of limitations, and 

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:8923
6 

Defendants’ knowledge, willfulness and good faith. 

While Plaintiffs were confident in their claims, Defendants would have argued that 

Plaintiffs’ alleged unpaid time was not compensable and/or was not known (actually or 

constructively) to Defendants. In other words, Plaintiffs faced multiple challenging defenses. 

Taking these considerations into mind, the amount of the settlement is appropriate in relation 

to the potential recovery. 

The settlement is based on the number of weeks worked by each Plaintiff through a 

period of four years, and the individual amounts that each Plaintiff will receive are set forth 

in the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Parties’ Motion. All of the 

Plaintiffs have been personally involved since they joined this litigation, have devoted 

considerable time and expense, took risks, and their efforts have helped achieve a significant 

result. 

Based on the aforementioned factors, the Parties conclude that a settlement on the terms 

set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, in the best interests of the 

Parties, and not worth the costs and risks associated with a trial. Additionally, the Parties have 

agreed that Defendants will pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $250,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and 

recoverable costs, a compromise sum representing less than 41% of what Plaintiffs’ counsel have 

expended in the prosecution of these related actions. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For all the above reasons, the Parties respectfully request an order: (1) approving the 

Settlement Agreement, including the releases of claims, the payments to Plaintiffs, and the 

payment of attorneys’ fees and costs set forth therein; (2) dismissing the action in its entirety 

without prejudice, which will convert to with prejudice once the settlement is funded by 

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:8924
7 

Defendants; and (3) retaining jurisdiction until 31 days after the date this Court approves the 

Settlement to enforce the terms of the Settlement, including the release of claims. 

Dated: June 21, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

s/ Ryan F. Stephan 

Ryan F. Stephan 

Teresa M. Becvar 

Stephan Zouras, LLP 

205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Tel. 312-233-1550 

 rstephan@stephanzouras.com 

 tbecvar@stepahnzouras.com 

Noelle Brennan 

Kristin H. Carter 

Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd. 

20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1530 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Tel. 312-422-0001 

nbrennan@nbrennan-associates.com 

kcarter@nbrennan-associates.com 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

s/ Sari M. Alamuddin 

Sari M. Alamuddin 

Allison N. Powers 

Alexandra S. Tuffuor 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

77 W. Wacker Drive, Fifth Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Tel. 312-324-1000 

salamuddin@morganlewis.com 

apowers@morganlewis.com 

atuffuor@morganlewis.com 

Michael L. Banks (pro hac vice) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1701 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: 215-963-5387 

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:8925
8 

mbanks@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8926