IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Kara	Maddox,

Plaintiff,

v.

BMO	Harris	Bank,	N.A.,

Defendant.

Case	No.		1:12-cv-03221

Magistrate	Judge	Jeffrey	T.	Gilbert

PLAINTIFF KARA MADDOX’S UNOPPOSED MOTION

FOR APPROVAL OF FLSA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Plaintiff, Kara Maddox, individually, through her counsel, respectfully requests that this 

Court enter an Order approving the parties’ settlement agreement in this matter. In support of 

this motion, Plaintiffs state as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint has been brought pursuant to three wage statutes: the federal Fair 

Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and 

Collection Act. The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act claim was dismissed pursuant 

to stipulation on July 12, 2012.

2. Following the addition of section 216(c) to the FLSA, most federal courts have held that 

there are only two routes for compromise of FLSA claims: through a settlement supervised by 

the Secretary of Labor or a stipulated judgment entered by a district court after the settlement 

is reviewed for fairness. In addition, private settlements of claims under the Illinois Minimum 

Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, in the form of releases signed 

by employees, are not permissible. See, Lewis v. Giordano's Enterprises, Inc., 921 N.E.2d 

740, 751 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2009).
3. The parties have reached an individual settlement with Plaintiff whereby Plaintiff is 

agreeing to relinquish her claims for, inter alia, certain unpaid overtime wages under the 

FLSA. The amount and precise terms of the parties’ settlement is confidential, and subject to 

confidentiality provisions contained in the Agreement.

4. Plaintiff asserts that the settlement amount is reasonable in light of the fact that the 

documentation of the hours that plaintiff worked each week is uncorroborated, the parties 

differ widely as to the number of hours that plaintiff actually worked, and in light of the 

respective burdens the parties face with respect to their claims and defenses. Indeed, 

Defendant denies any liability towards Maddox, including as it contends that Maddox was 

properly classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and IMWL, which 

is another issue in dispute between the parties and a factor supporting the reasonableness of 

the settlement.

5. Defendant has been advised of this motion, and does not oppose the motion, or settlement 

on the terms set forth in the parties’ settlement agreement, which was negotiated at armslength and followed Plaintiff's review and analysis of significant written discovery produced 

by Defendant .

6. To determine the fairness of a settlement under FLSA, “the court must consider whether 

the agreement reflects a reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than a mere waiver 

of statutory rights brought about by an employer's overreaching.” Tuan Le v. Sita Information 

Networking Computing USA, Inc. 2008 WL 724155, at *1 (citing Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. 

United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir.1982)). The court must review settlements 

because there is a “fear that employers would coerce employees into settlement and waiver [of 

their claims]. Id.; Misiewicz v. D'Onofrio Gen. Contractors Corp. 08CV4377(KAM)(CLP), 
2010 WL 2545439 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) report and recommendation adopted, 08-CV-4377 KAM 

CLP, 2010 WL 2545472 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). Here, there is no such fear of coercion because 

Maddox's employment with Defendant was terminated prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

7. Normally, a settlement is approved where it is the result of “contentious arm's-length 

negotiations, which were undertaken in good faith by counsel.... and serious questions of law 

and fact exist such that the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of 

further relief after protracted and expensive litigation.” Reyes v. Buddha–Bar NYC, No. 08 CV 

2494, 2009 WL 5841177, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2009).

8. Plaintiff’s complaint originally sought to bring a collective action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

216(b), and class action pursuant to Rule 23. Plaintiff filed motions for collective action 

certification (Doc. #25), and Rule 23 certification (Doc. #27) and then withdrew those 

motions without prejudice, as confirmed by this Court’s order (Doc. # 31).

9. Subsequent discovery has suggested limitations on Plaintiff’s ability to represent either a 

collective class or a Rule 23 class, as Plaintiff earned, at least for some portion of the 

purported class period, a sufficiently high salary such that Plaintiff’s status an a non-exempt 

employee could reasonably be questioned.

10. Thus, Plaintiff has negotiated a settlement of her claims individually with Defendant.

11. Plaintiff has negotiated settlement terms which represent a reasonable compromise of her 

wage claims, including consideration of relevant statutory penalties and attorney fee shifting 

in the operative statutes. Plaintiff has been represented by counsel experienced in wage and 

hour and class and collective action litigation. Plaintiff has entered into the settlement 

agreement without coercion, and after having conferred with her own counsel.
12. The settlement provides for the dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice, with each side 

responsible for its own costs and attorneys' fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves for the entry of an order approving the settlement in this 

matter, and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), 

with each party to bear its or her own costs and attorneys' fees. 

Respectfully submitted,

KARA MADDOX

 By: /s/Jeffrey Grant Brown

Jeffrey Grant Brown

Plaintiff’s counsel

Jeffrey Grant Brown

Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C.

221 North LaSalle Street

Suite 1414

Chicago, IL 60601

Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE	OF	SERVICE

The	undersigned,	an	attorney,	hereby	certifies	that	he	caused	the	attached	Plaintiff Kara 

Maddoxʼs Unopposed Motion For Approval Of FLSA Settlement Agreement to	be	filed	

with	the	Clerk	of	the	U.S.	District	Court	for	the	Northern	District	of	Illinois,	using	the	

CM/ECF	system	which	will	send	notification	of	such	filing	to	the	following	Filing	Users,	on	

this	22nd day	of	October,	2012.

Gary	R.	Clark

Quarles	&	Brady	LLP	

300	North	LaSalle	Street		

Suite	4000		

Chicago,	Illinois	60654

Sean	M.	Scullen

Quarles	&	Brady	LLP

411	East	Wisconsin	Avenue

Suite	2350

Milwaukee,	Wisconsin		53202

Respectfully	submitted,

KARA	MADDOX	

By:		/s/	Jeffrey	Grant	Brown

								Attorney	for	Plaintiffs

Jeffrey	Grant	Brown

Jeffrey	Grant	Brown,	P.C.

221	North	LaSalle	Street

Suite	1414

Chicago,	Illinois		60601

(312)	789-9700