1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CHARLIE PEACOCK AND JOSE ORTIZ, 

on behalf of themselves and all other persons

similarly situated, known and unknown,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v.

CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

 Case No. 12 CV 334

Magistrate Judge Finnegan

ORDER AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JOIN LAWSUIT AND 

GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

THIS MATTER COMING BEFORE THE COURT on the parties' joint motion for final 

approval of settlement agreement and the Court being fully advised in the premises,

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS AND ORDERS: 

1. On January 17, 2012, Charlie Peacock and Jose Ortiz (“Named Plaintiffs”) filed a 

complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern 

Division, Case No. 12 C 00334 (the “Litigation”), alleging a collective action under the Fair 

Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), and class action under the 

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

Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1, et seq. (“IWPCA”), for CTA’s alleged failure to 

pay rail operations employees for time CTA required them to train in connection with system 

and section picks when those employees voluntarily picked to work in a new Section, to work 

out of a different terminal, or to work on a different rail line. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00334 Document #: 42 Filed: 02/26/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:149
2

2. Effective April 5, 2012, by agreement of the parties, the statute of limitations was 

tolled effective April 5, 2012, such that there are two system picks and three section picks at 

issue in the Litigation, as follows: August 2, 2009 System Pick; February 2, 2010 System Pick; 

December 10, 2010 Section Pick; June 12, 2011 Section Pick; and November 20, 2011 Section 

Pick (collectively, the “2009-2011 Picks”).

3. Four individuals (“Opt-in Plaintiffs”) have given their consents in writing to 

become parties to the Litigation and have given written authorization to the Named Plaintiffs to 

represent them and have agreed in writing to be bound by any settlement of the case or 

adjudication by the Court.

4. The attorneys for Named Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs have had the opportunity 

to examine CTA’s records related to the 2009-2011 Picks and CTA has identified additional rail 

operations employees who may have claims with respect to this Litigation (“Eligible Plaintiffs”).

5. On or about February 20, 2013, the Named Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs reached 

a settlement agreement. See Exhibit 1.

6. Parties to an FLSA lawsuit may settle disputed claims by means of a stipulated 

judgment entered by the district court after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. Lynn's Food 

Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982). 

7. Under the Final Settlement Agreement and Release (“settlement agreement”), the 

CTA agrees to pay up to $320,734.92 in the aggregate allocated in the settlement agreement 

individually to the Named Plaintiffs, Opt-in Plaintiffs, and to those Eligible Plaintiffs who timely 

submit an executed Consent to Join Suit as a Party Plaintiff. Under the settlement agreement, the 

CTA also agrees to pay the attorneys for Named Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs $64,000.00 in 

fees and costs. The CTA also agrees to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs and shall not seek 

Case: 1:12-cv-00334 Document #: 42 Filed: 02/26/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:150
3

attorneys’ fees and costs from any Plaintiff or attorneys for Named Plaintiffs and Opt-in 

Plaintiffs.

8. Under the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs release the CTA from all allegations or 

claims which have been raised or which could have been raised by, or which arise from or relate 

to the facts, transactions, occurrences, or subject matter described in or encompassed by, the 

Litigation through the date the settlement agreement was signed.

9. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court authorizes notice to Eligible 

Plaintiffs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), so that they may have the opportunity to opt-in to this 

collective action and agree to be bound by the terms of the settlement agreement. The Court 

finds that the distribution of the Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit and Summary of Settlement 

Agreement and Release by first class mail will fully and accurately inform all Plaintiffs of all 

material elements of the settlement agreement, constitutes the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances, and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice, complying with the requirements 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, and any other 

applicable law.

10. The Court finds that the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in 

the best interests of all Plaintiffs. The settlement agreement offers to Plaintiffs a reasonable sum 

of overtime compensation and an additional reasonable amount of liquidated damages. The 

amount of compensable time and Plaintiffs' entitlement to liquidated damages are disputed. The 

attorneys for Named Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs have had the opportunity to examine 

Plaintiffs' training and payroll records as well as other CTA documents throughout the course of 

this litigation. It is clear that any additional litigation of this suit would be protracted. There has 

Case: 1:12-cv-00334 Document #: 42 Filed: 02/26/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:151
4

been no collusion in reaching a settlement. The Court therefore grants the joint motion for final 

approval of settlement agreement.

11. The Court finds, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

that there is no just reason for delay and orders the entry of a final judgment in this case which 

shall incorporate the settlement agreement.

12. The attached settlement agreement is entered as an order of the Court and the 

parties are ordered to comply with, and to make performance as required under, the terms of the 

settlement agreement. This case is dismissed without prejudice effective June 26, 2013 and the 

Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Litigation for a period of 60 days after entry of this Order 

for purposes of enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement. The Litigation will be dismissed 

with prejudice by order of the Court if no party files a motion to enforce the settlement 

agreement within 60 days after the dismissal without prejudice.

DATE: February 26, 2013 ENTER: 

HONORABLE SHEILA FINNEGAN

Judge Presiding

Case: 1:12-cv-00334 Document #: 42 Filed: 02/26/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:152