Hays v. LRW Traffic Systems LLC, 1:24-cv-03306

Plaintiffs, former and current construction flaggers, brought collective action claims against LRW Traffic Systems and its president, along with two General Contractors.
Plaintiffs alleged underpayment for work time, including pre- and post-site time at the LRW yard, travel between worksites, unlawful wage deductions for breaks not taken, and unpaid standby hours.
Some Plaintiffs alleged retaliation for asserting their rights, including reduced hours, unwarranted discipline, threats, and termination.
Claims asserted include violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and two retaliation-related counts.
The parties attempted to settle the case, proposing a $760,000 settlement covering wages, service payments, retaliation damages, attorney’s fees, and costs for 552 eligible workers.
The Court was presented with a joint motion seeking approval of the settlement before collective action certification and prior to providing opt-in notice to potential class members.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can the Court grant final approval to a collective-action FLSA settlement before class certification and notice?	Settlement should be approved and notice provided at the same time; many have opted in, so the process is sufficient.	Settlement is appropriate and efficient, meets fairness standards.	Motion denied without prejudice: certification and notice must precede final approval, per case law.
Is the briefing sufficient on certification of the collective class?	Certification is warranted based on similarity of claims and opt-ins.	Implicitly supports, relying on mediation outcome and settlement agreement.	Briefing insufficient; the Court requires more robust analysis and authority before certification.
Was the attorney’s fee request adequately supported?	Fee request based on outcome and work performed; seeks approval per settlement agreement.	Supports fee award as part of global settlement.	Briefing on fees is inadequate—must provide supporting authority and justification.
Must the Court hold a fairness hearing before approving the FLSA settlement?	Not directly addressed but suggests settlement is fair and reasonable.	No explicit argument found in motion.	Court indicates such a hearing may be appropriate and requires briefing on this point.

Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (sets the standard for approving FLSA settlements as requiring a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute)
Quinteros v. Sparkle Cleaning, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 762 (D. Md. 2008) (explains FLSA 'opt-in' procedure for collective actions)