Petrose v. Forsgren, Inc.

W.D. Arkansas

Petrose v. Forsgren, Inc.

DecidedNovember 8, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-02097

StatusUnknown

This text of Petrose v. Forsgren, Inc. (Petrose v. Forsgren, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Petrose v. Forsgren, Inc., (W.D. Ark. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION

MAURICE PETROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 2:21-CV-02097-MEF

FORSGREN, INC. DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA) case in which Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks unpaid overtime. (ECF No. 2). Following a settlement conference held on September 8, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and for Approval of Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 15). The parties also filed their Settlement Agreement and Release (ECF No. 15-1) and a Declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel (ECF No. 15-2) in support of the motion. These documents demonstrate that the settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate compromise of a bona fide dispute, and there appear to be no terms in the settlement agreement that are contrary to public policy or tend to call into question whether the settlement is the product of arm’s length negotiations regarding the merits of the case.1 IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and for Approval of Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. The parties’ settlement

1 The settlement agreement contains a release of claims by the Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 15-1, ¶ 5.1, p. 7). The release is limited to wage related claims arising from Defendant’s alleged failure to properly pay overtime by failing to include non-discretionary bonus payments in the regular rate for purposes of determining the amount of overtime due under state and federal Wage and Hour laws, and the Court construes the agreement as only containing a waiver of such wage-related claims. Briggins v. Elwood TRI, Inc., 3 F.Supp.3d 1277, 1288-89 (N.D. Ala. 2014) (“[I]n order to be compensated consistent with the FLSA, an employee cannot be compelled to surrender other rights . . . .”). agreement is approved, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on those terms. Judgment will be entered separately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of November 2021. /s/ Mark E. Ford HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION

MAURICE PETROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 2:21-CV-02097-MEF

FORSGREN, INC. DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA) case in which Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks unpaid overtime. (ECF No. 2). Following a settlement conference held on September 8, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and for Approval of Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 15). The parties also filed their Settlement Agreement and Release (ECF No. 15-1) and a Declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel (ECF No. 15-2) in support of the motion. These documents demonstrate that the settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate compromise of a bona fide dispute, and there appear to be no terms in the settlement agreement that are contrary to public policy or tend to call into question whether the settlement is the product of arm’s length negotiations regarding the merits of the case.1 IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and for Approval of Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. The parties’ settlement

1 The settlement agreement contains a release of claims by the Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 15-1, ¶ 5.1, p. 7). The release is limited to wage related claims arising from Defendant’s alleged failure to properly pay overtime by failing to include non-discretionary bonus payments in the regular rate for purposes of determining the amount of overtime due under state and federal Wage and Hour laws, and the Court construes the agreement as only containing a waiver of such wage-related claims. Briggins v. Elwood TRI, Inc., 3 F.Supp.3d 1277, 1288-89 (N.D. Ala. 2014) (“[I]n order to be compensated consistent with the FLSA, an employee cannot be compelled to surrender other rights . . . .”). agreement is approved, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on those terms. Judgment will be entered separately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of November 2021. /s/ Mark E. Ford HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Petrose v. Forsgren, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petrose-v-forsgren-inc-arwd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack