March 9, 2023 at 1:57 p.m.
Oneida County settles federal labor lawsuit
Kimberly Haugen of Rhinelander filed the suit Aug. 24, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
The complaint alleged that during the three years preceding the lawsuit, Haugen was employed by Oneida County as a social worker, and, during that employment, she was denied overtime wages under an illegal pay policy in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
"Under this policy, defendant required Haugen and other similarly situated employees to work hours over 40 hours in a single workweek without overtime compensation," the complaint alleged. "When plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked over 40 hours in a single workweek, they were compensated at their regularly hourly rate for those hours, rather than one and one half times their hourly rate as overtime compensation."
According to online federal court records, a motion for settlement of the case was filed on Feb. 28. The motion included a copy of the settlement agreement which states that Haugen agreed to drop her claims in exchange for a payment of $3,374.10.
"The Plaintiff shall be allocated $3,374.10, to be divided between unpaid wages and liquidated damages," the settlement agreement reads. "This individual claim value accounts for all unpaid overtime premiums during the period of January 1, 2020 to Plaintiff's separation from employment in August 2021 ("the lookback period"). This calculation was achieved using data from Defendant's timekeeping system showing the number of overtime hours recorded by the Plaintiff for she was not paid overtime premiums during the lookback period. The regular rate of pay was determined by using the highest hourly wage Plaintiff earned during the lookback period. This regular rate of pay was multiplied by 50% to determine the overtime premium. The total hours worked in excess of 40 for which Plaintiff had not already received an overtime premium was multiplied by that overtime premium to determine the overtime wages due for the entire lookback period. The overtime claim value was then increased by 100% to account for liquidated damages under the FLSA."
The county also agreed to pay $10,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to settle the case, according to the agreement.
Haugen filed the lawsuit as a collective action complaint, meaning she brought the lawsuit not only on her own behalf but on behalf of similarly situated workers who also were alleged to have worked more than 40 hours a week without being paid overtime wages, however the settlement applies only to her claims.
A brief in support of a motion requesting court approval of the settlement does indicate that other "similarly situated" employees may also be compensated by the county.
"Shortly after the Complaint was filed, the parties began to explore whether it would be possible to resolve this matter. Through discovery, Defendant provided Plaintiff's counsel with payroll and timekeeping records for the collective class during the statutory period. The parties agreed on the number of overtime hours recorded during the statutory period, the regular rate of pay, calculation of overtime premiums, and that Defendant would pay an equal amount in liquidated damages," the brief states. "The primary issue of dispute was the time period for which Plaintiff might successfully recover damages in this litigation, namely, whether Plaintiff could prove willfulness in order to recover a third year of damages. Counsel for the parties are experienced in litigating wage and hour lawsuits under the FLSA and Wisconsin law. Based on their experiences, in light of the disputed issues, the expense of continued litigation, and the inherent risks of litigation, the parties agreed to calculate Plaintiff's full claim value, including liquidated damages, from January 1, 2020, to the end of Plaintiff's employment. During the course of discovery and negotiations, Defendant also offered to pay the potential class members the full value of their claims, including liquidated damages. Defendant calculated overtime wages and liquidated damages due to each potential class member, and Plaintiff's counsel reviewed those calculations. Defendant is engaging directly with members of the potential class to issue payments and resolve their potential claims. The parties do not seek through this motion or the Settlement Agreement any relief for the potential class. Defendant's payments to potential class members are done voluntarily and with the knowledge of Plaintiff's counsel. No class has been certified in this matter. Plaintiff is settling this matter on an individual basis, including releasing only her claims related to this lawsuit."
In the lawsuit, Haugen maintained that she was paid as an hourly worker throughout her tenure with the county, and that throughout her tenure the county permitted her and others to work more than 40 hours in a single workweek without providing overtime compensation for those hours.
"Throughout the three-year period preceding the filing of this complaint, defendant compensated plaintiff and the putative class members at their regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in a single workweek, rather than one and one half times their hourly rate as overtime compensation," the complaint alleged.
The FLSA requires each covered employer to compensate all non-exempt employees at a rate of not less than one and one half times their regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Comments:
You must login to comment.