18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 225 settlement class, was the result of arm’s length negotiations with the assistance of an experienced mediator, and was fair, reasonable and just. The Court thereby granted final settlement approval. The Court also approved service agreements of $20,000 to each of the named Plaintiffs and $10,000 to each of the opt-in Plaintiffs who assisted with depositions and discovery. The Court reasoned that the attorneys’ fee request of $5,666,666,67 was fair and reasonable following the lodestar cross-check. The Court also granted the requests for reimbursement of costs of Plaintiffs’ counsel of $75,000. Rembert, et al. v. A Plus Home Health Care Agency, LLC , 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 196 (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2021). Plaintiff, a home health nurse, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. After Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) began an investigation into Defendant’s pay practices. The District Court granted the motion for conditional certification, and the parties began discovery, during which Defendant failed to comply with the majority of its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After repeated attempts to reach Defendant’s counsel to no avail, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to compel. The District Court granted the motion and ordered Defendant to pay "reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing the motion and the surrounding circumstances." Id . at *2. As a result of the DOL investigation, some members of the collective action received full payment of the amounts owed to them. Following the settlement, the parties agreed to the entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the remaining collective action members of $18,961, plus "reasonable fees and costs." Id . at *3. Plaintiff moved for an award of fees and costs of $38,190 as the prevailing party on her FLSA claim. The District Court approved the rates requested by Plaintiff’s counsel, but reduced counsel’s total compensable hours from a total of 119.9 to 46.2 hours, a 61% reduction in compensable hours, and cut the fee award an additional $1,660, on the ground that judges in the Southern District of Ohio "typically approved" fee awards of no more than 35% of the "total settlement amount.” Id . at *6. Plaintiff appealed the District Court’s ruling, and on appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Sixth Circuit looked to U.S. Supreme Court precedent in support of the notion that the very reason that the FLSA mandates an award of reasonable fees to prevailing Plaintiffs is that the monetary value of their claims is often too small to support the cost of litigating them. Id . at *7. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit explained that a District Court abuses its discretion if it limits the attorneys’ fees awardable under the FLSA to a percentage of a Plaintiff’s recovery. The Sixth Circuit determined that Plaintiff obtained 100% of the recovery due to them under the FLSA. Further, the Sixth Circuit opined that the District Court provided no explanation of any kind for its determination of some of hours of Plaintiff’s counsel were compensable while others were not, or why the number of hours that Plaintiff’s counsel "reasonably expended" on the rest of the litigation, which spanned three years, was unreasonable. Id . at *8. The Sixth Circuit explained that after a thorough review of the docket in the case and the billing records of Plaintiff’s counsel, there was nothing more than de minimis entries (if any) for non-compensable time. Id . at *9. For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit found that the District Court abused its discretion and thus it reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling. Skender, et al. v. Eden Isle Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130769 (E.D. Ark. July 14, 2021). Plaintiff filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Prior to the Court granting conditional certification, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff thereafter accepted Defendant’s outstanding offer of judgment for $4,000. Plaintiff then moved for an award of $30,681.70 in attorneys’ fees and $1,225.20 in costs. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The Court determined that the hourly rates requested for the attorneys who worked on the matter were not backed up by any evidence that they were within reasonable ranges for the type of litigation and the area where the services were provided. The Court found that reducing the hourly rates for each lawyer would be appropriate, and it also struck any hourly time billed from administrative members of the Firm. The Court also explained that the presence of 13 timekeepers on the matter, with 10 being attorneys, was unnecessary. The Court opined that the billing practices were also unclear, unnecessary, contained clerical work, was excessive, and that the amount of actual success on the merits was much lower than the requested relief. The Court observed that Plaintiff’s accepted offer of judgement of $4,000 was far below the alleged damages of anywhere between $12,000 and $83,000.69, or just 5.6% of the of the original demand. The Court therefore determined that an attorneys’ fee award of nearly $30,000 was not fair, proper, or suitable under the circumstances. The Court ruled that failing to reduce the lodestar to reflect the lack of success here would encourage over- preparation and over-billing for cases that are easily pursued and could be settled quickly, and would create a