In December 2022, firefighters for the City of Biloxi, Mississippi sued the City for withheld longevity payments in violation of the FLSA. In May 2023, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement that the City would reinstate longevity payments to all City firefighters beginning on October 1, 2023. During the settlement conference, the city attorney made clear that “the longevity pay would be paid going forward. It’s not a back payment, but it is a reinstatement essentially for all City employees going forward.” The city attorney reduced the settlement to a written agreement and submitted it to the firefighters’ counsel, who responded by email “that agreement looks fine.” The city council subsequently voted to authorize the agreement, which was approved by the mayor on May 26, 2023.
In June 2023, the firefighters’ counsel informed the City that slightly over half of the firefighters signed the agreement, with the rest refusing to do so. At issue was the following provision of the agreement: “Biloxi will reinstate longevity pay going forward pursuant to City Ordinance 15-1-14, to not only the firefighters, but to all full-time City employees who qualify for longevity pay on October 1, 2023. The amount of available longevity pay going forward will be calculated by the number of years of service as of October 1, 2023. All other provisions of the Ordinance will remain in effect as of October 1, 2023.” According to the firefighters who refused to sign, this language did not comply with the City’s alleged earlier promise to pay longevity for the entirety of 2023. The City filed a motion with the Court to enforce the agreement, and the firefighters opposed the motion, arguing that the settlement should be set aside to allow the parties to come to an agreement about the longevity pay issue.
The Court granted the motion to enforce the agreement. It first explained that the agreement is no different from any other contract and should be analyzed as such. Where a contract is unambiguous, the Court is bound to enforce its terms; whether a contract is ambiguous or not is a question of law for a court to decide. “A contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree upon the correct interpretation or upon whether it is reasonably open to just one interpretation. If the written instrument is so worded that it can be given a certain or definite legal meaning or interpretation, then it is not ambiguous, and this Court will construe the contract as a matter of law.
“It is undisputed that at the conclusion of the settlement conference on May 3, 2023, the undersigned recited into the record – in the presence of the firefighters, their proxies, and counsel for the parties – the terms of the settlement agreement reached as a result of the settlement conference.” The Court also emphasized that the firefighters’ counsel approved the agreement, which included the contested language, prior to its adoption by the city council. “The firefighters, who previously authorized a settlement, cannot now change their minds; they are bound by the terms of the settlement agreement.”
As for the specific issue of whether the longevity pay would commence January 1, 2023, or October 1, 2023, the Court again sided with the City. The clear, explicit language of the agreement provided that longevity pay would resume for firefighters on October 1, 2023. The city attorney made clear at the settlement conference that longevity pay would not apply retroactively. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the October 1 date was the beginning of the City’s fiscal year, giving further credence to the City’s position that longevity payments were intended to begin on that date. The Court determined that the agreement was clear and unambiguous regarding longevity pay – the City would reinstate longevity pay for the firefighters and other qualifying City employees on October 1, 2023, without retroactive effect. Accordingly, the Court found the agreement to be a valid, enforceable contract, and granted the City’s motion to enforce.
Gates v. City of Biloxi, CIVIL AC-TION NO. 1:22-CV-356-LG-RPM, 2024 WL 510325 (S.D. Miss., 2024).