Isbell v. Polaris, Inc.

Background

Leah Isbell brought the action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, alleging that Polaris violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other federal and state statutes by failing to pay employees for all hours worked. The alleged underpayment involved Polaris’s timekeeping and rounding practices and an approximately two-month outage of its Kronos timekeeping system beginning in December 2021.

For settlement purposes, the parties identified the affected collective as individuals who worked at Polaris’s Huntsville, Alabama facility from May 17, 2019, to the present, were paid hourly, and appeared in data Polaris provided for settlement discussions. The parties reached an agreement after extensive discovery, a full-day mediation before Lynn P. Cohn, and additional negotiations. Polaris agreed to pay $1,390,000 into a common fund, which would be distributed pro rata based on the members’ time employed by Polaris.

Settlement Approval

The court explained that the Eighth Circuit has not decided whether every FLSA settlement requires judicial approval. The court assumed, without deciding, that approval was required. It applied the standard that an FLSA settlement may be approved when the case involves a genuine dispute and the settlement is fair and equitable.

The court found a genuine dispute because Isbell alleged that Polaris owed unpaid overtime wages, while Polaris denied owing wages or damages. The court also found the settlement fair and equitable based on the discovery exchanged, the parties’ experienced counsel, the mediation, the arm’s-length negotiations, and the uncertainty and delay of continuing to trial. The court noted that employees could choose to file their own claims instead of opting into the settlement and would not lose their rights to pursue overtime, employee-benefits, or other claims by making that choice.

Fees, Expenses, and Service Award

Isbell requested $463,333.33 in attorneys’ fees, equal to one-third of the settlement amount, and $39,132.49 in expenses. Applying the percentage-of-recovery method and considering counsel’s time records, the court found the fee reasonable. The records showed $327,121 in fees and expenses calculated using hourly rates the court considered reasonable for complex litigation, resulting in a 1.42 lodestar multiplier for the requested fee.

The court also found the requested expenses reasonable and related to the litigation. Counsel identified the expenses as including filing fees, postage, online research, outreach, and mediation costs. The court granted the request for $463,333.33 in attorneys’ fees and $39,132.49 in expenses.

The court approved Isbell’s requested $5,000 service award. It found that Isbell had made significant efforts on behalf of the collective and had actively participated in the litigation, including spending time and effort bringing the action.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted the parties’ motion for approval of settlement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and entry of final judgment. The court dismissed the matter with prejudice and ordered judgment entered accordingly.