Lackie v. U.S. Well Services, LLC, 2:15-cv-00695

Background

Plaintiffs Jeff Lackie and William Crandell sued U.S. Well Services alleging the employer improperly excluded safety/compliance and performance bonuses from overtime calculations under the FLSA and state wage laws. Defendant denied liability and asserted defenses.
The case was conditionally certified as an FLSA collective; 139 opt-ins filed consents. Plaintiffs also moved to certify Ohio and Pennsylvania Rule 23 classes; both Rule 23 and a partial summary judgment motion on good-faith were pending at mediation.
Extensive two-phase discovery and depositions occurred before parties mediated; after an initial unsuccessful mediation day, continued negotiations produced a mediator’s proposal accepted on modification.
The settlement releases all federal and state wage-and-hour claims relating to the bonus exclusions (carving out per diem and another pending case), allocates payments pro rata by workweeks with plaintiffs/opt-ins weighted more heavily, and provides individualized payments ($100–$8,894) to 178 persons (2 plaintiffs, 139 opt-ins, 37 Rule 23 class members).
Notice was mailed to class members, remailed where possible after undeliverable returns; no class member objected or opted out, and 37 Rule 23 members submitted consent forms to receive payments.
The magistrate judge recommended final approval, approval of service awards and attorneys’ fees, distribution of the Table of Individual Payments, dismissal with prejudice, and retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an FLSA collective settlement is appropriate	Settlement resolves bona fide dispute over overtime calculation and is fair, reasonable, adequate	Settlement is the parties’ negotiated resolution of contested liability and risks	Approved: court finds bona fide dispute and settlement fair under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
Whether Rule 23 settlement of state-law claims should be approved	Settlement of Ohio/Pennsylvania class claims is fair, adequate, reasonable; notice provided	Agreed to settlement terms after negotiation; no opposition at fairness hearing	Approved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); recommended final approval
Notice sufficiency and class response	Notice by first-class mail, re-mailing after undeliverables, 60-day response period was adequate	Administrator followed court instructions; no objections or opt-outs	Found reasonable and best practicable; satisfied Rule 23(e) and due process
Allocation, payments, service awards, attorneys’ fees	Allocation proportionate to workweeks; plaintiffs/opt-ins weighted; proposed payments and fees reasonable	Parties negotiated allocations and fee amounts; payments subject to tax reporting	Approved: Table of Individual Payments, service awards, and attorneys’ fees recommended for payment; dismissal with prejudice recommended

Key Cases Cited

Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816 (6th Cir. 2008) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge’s report waives appellate review)
United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2005) (failure to object to magistrate judge’s report results in waiver of appeal)
Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) (general objections that fail to specify issues do not preserve appellate review)