IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES WILLIAMS, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 15-11565 

v. Hon. Gershwin A. Drain 

K&K ASSISTED LIVING LLC, K&K 

ASSISTED LIVING #1 LLC, K&K 

ASSISTED LIVING #2 LLC, K&K 

ASSISTED LIVING #6 LLC, and MILTON 

KENNEDY, 

Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ENTRY OF STIPULATED ORDER 

OF DISMISSAL 

On April 30, 2015, Plaintiffs Charles Williams, George Ruffin, and Wanda 

Turner filed suit against Defendants K&K Assisted Living LLC, K&K Assisted 

Living #1 LLC, K&K Assisted Living #2 LLC, and K&K Assisted Living #6 LLC, 

alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et 

seq. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on May 27, 2015. Dkt. No. 

7. 

Case 2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS ECF No. 40 filed 04/11/16 PageID.398 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

On January 14, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to approve the 

settlement agreement and dismiss Plaintiffs Ruffin and Turner from the case. Dkt. 

No. 33, 34. On January 27, 2016, the Court granted that joint motion. Dkt. 35. 

Now, on April 4, 2016, the parties have filed another joint motion to approve 

settlement and to dismiss the suit as to the final Plaintiff, Charles Williams. Dkt. 

No. 36. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint 

Motion [36]. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The present case arises out of a claim for overtime compensation that 

Plaintiff Williams alleges is due under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. In 

addition, Plaintiff Williams alleges that he was wrongfully retaliated against and 

terminated from Defendants’ employment because he filed this lawsuit, which he 

claims constitutes further violation of the FLSA. With respect to the overtime 

compensation claim, Plaintiff Williams asserted that he and those “similarly 

situated” to him are individuals who were or currently are employed by Defendants 

as direct care workers at the various K&K Assisted Living facilities. Dkt. No. 22, 

p. 11 (Pg. ID No. 99). Defendants operate multiple group homes in the Detroit 

area where mentally disabled individuals reside and receive around-the-clock care. 

Id. at 2, ¶ 1 (Pg. ID No. 90). Plaintiff Williams was an hourly, non-salaried 

employee for K&K. Dkt. No. 22-3 (Pg. ID 124-28). Plaintiff Williams received 

Case 2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS ECF No. 40 filed 04/11/16 PageID.399 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

an hourly wage of $8.19 per hour, without any additional compensation for 

overtime hours worked. See id.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action on April 30, 2015, alleging 

Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay direct care workers overtime 

compensation. See Dkt. No. 1, p. 7, ¶ 33 (Pg. ID No. 7). On October 9, 2015, 

Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of this action as a collective action 

pursuant to section 216(b) of the FLSA. See Dkt. No. 22, p.2 (Pg. ID No. 90). The 

Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion on November 17, 2015. Dkt. No. 25. The “optin” period for the collective action expired on March 4, 2016, but no opt-in consent 

forms were filed with the Court at or before that time. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

“In reviewing a settlement of an FLSA private claim, a court must scrutinize 

the proposed settlement for fairness, and determine whether the settlement is a ‘fair 

and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.’” Bartlow 

v. Grand Crowne Resorts of Pigeon Forge, No. 3:11-CV-400, 2012 WL 6707008, 

at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 26, 2012) (quoting Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. By & 

Through U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Employment Standards Admin., Wage & Hour Div., 

679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982)). 

In determining whether a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, the 

court considers each of the following factors, if relevant: 

Case 2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS ECF No. 40 filed 04/11/16 PageID.400 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

(1) the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and 

likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of discovery 

completed; (4) the likelihood of success on the merits; (5) the opinion 

of class counsel and representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class 

members; and (7) public interest in the settlement. 

Snook v. Valley OB-Gyn Clinic, P.C., 2015 WL 144400, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 

2015). District courts may approve FLSA settlements “in order to promote the 

policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 

1354. 

III. DISCUSSION 

A. The Settlement Must Resolve a Bona Fide Dispute 

First, the Court must determine whether the parties are engaged in a bona 

fide dispute. Snook, 2015 WL 144400, at *1. Plaintiff alleges that he was not 

compensated as required by the FLSA for work in excess of 40 hours a week. 

Defendants dispute whether they must pay Plaintiffs additional compensation for 

those excess hours. In addition, Plaintiff contends that he was wrongfully 

terminated, in violation of the FLSA, for filing this lawsuit. Defendants contend 

that Plaintiff’s separation from employment with them was unrelated to the filing 

of the FLSA claim. The Court would be required to resolve the parties’ “goodfaith” disagreements, had they not resolved them jointly. Accordingly, the Court is 

satisfied that Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim was actually and reasonably in dispute. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS ECF No. 40 filed 04/11/16 PageID.401 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

B. The Settlement Must Be Reasonable and Fair 

Next, the Court must scrutinize the settlement for fairness. Lynn’s Food 

Stores, 679 F.2d at 1353. After reading the proposed settlement, the Court finds 

that it is a fair and reasonable resolution to the parties’ dispute. See Dkt. No. 36-1. 

Both parties are represented by counsel and there is no indication that the parties’ 

agreement is anything but a “reasonable compromise” to a bona fide dispute. See 

Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354 (“If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit 

does reflect a reasonable compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage or 

computation of back wages, that are actually in dispute; we allow the district court 

to approve the settlement in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement 

of litigation.”) As parties stated in their amended brief, the settlement bears a 

reasonable relationship to the amount in dispute, as well as the costs and risks of 

proceeding with litigation. Dkt. No. 36, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 375). 

Finally, the Court concludes that the attorneys’ fee award is reasonable. 

Plaintiff will receive $30,000. Id. at 4 (Pg. ID No. 377). Attorneys’ fees and 

expenses will then be deducted from that amount, resulting in a net settlement of 

$18,826.91 for Plaintiff. Id. at 5 (Pg. ID No. 378). In total, Plaintiffs’ counsel will 

receive $10,000.00 in fees and $1,173.09 in expenses for the time and resources 

working up the case until this point, while Plaintiff will receive $18,826.91. Id. 

Since FLSA fee awards have been viewed as fair even when the attorneys’ fee 

Case 2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS ECF No. 40 filed 04/11/16 PageID.402 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

exceeded plaintiff’s recovery, the Court cannot say that this amount is not fair and 

reasonable. See Lakosky v. Disc. Tire Co., No. 14-13362, 2015 WL 4617186, at *2 

(E.D. Mich. July 31, 2015) (approving a settlement where attorneys’ fees were 

“slightly greater” than the plaintiff’s recovery). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion for 

Approval of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Stipulated Order of Dismissal 

[36]. Plaintiff Charles Williams’s claims are dismissed with prejudice. 

Stipulated and agreed to: 

 /s/ Robert W. Cowan 

BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC 

Robert W. Cowan (TX 24031976) 

440 Louisiana St., Ste. 2100 

Houston, TX 77002 

(713) 425-7100 

rcowan@bpblaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PHILIP J. GOODMAN, P.C. 

Philip J. Goodman (P14168) 

280 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 407 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 647-9300 

pjgoodman1@aol.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 /s/ Kevin F. O’Shea 

THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 

Kevin F. O’Shea (P40586) 

Ann L. Miller (P43578) 

950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 

Rochester, MI 48307 

(248) 841-2200 

kfo@millerlawpc.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: April 11, 2016 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS ECF No. 40 filed 04/11/16 PageID.403 Page 6 of 6