18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

296 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition In sum, the agreement allocated approximately $760,000 for class member distribution or an average gross recovery of $344.51 per class member. In denying Plaintiff’s first motion, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proposed settlement agreement offered adequate relief to the class. As part of that problem, the Court explained that Plaintiff had not demonstrated how case-specific facts and evidence gave rise to particular risks affecting recovery on individual class claims. In his third motion, Plaintiff attempted to cure this deficiency by describing certain risks related to the above-listed claims. While the Court found some of these efforts were largely sufficient, the Court still had considerable qualms about Plaintiff’s analysis regarding the PAGA claim and the absence of analysis regarding other class claims and theories of liability that had been pleaded and were subject to release under the proposed settlement. The Court was also concerned that Plaintiff’s entire risk assessment was affected by an unaddressed issue regarding the applicable class period in that the proposed settlement defined the class period as the period of time from August 22, 2013 through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement. In other words, the class period had remained open since the parties reached their original agreement on October 12, 2018, and Plaintiff had not explained in his motion whether the most recent estimates accounted for the nearly two years that had elapsed since estimates were first provided. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement. Mercier, et al. v. United States, 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2349 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 29, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of over 3,200 Advanced Practice Registered Nurses ("APRNs") and Physicians Assistants ("PAs") currently or formerly employed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), filed a class action alleging that the VA violated Title 38 of the United States Code and the VA’s own policies and handbooks when it failed to pay them overtime for work they were induced to perform outside of their regular tours of duty in the VA’s Computerized Patient Record System ("CPRS"). Id . at *2-3. After many years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement, which provided that the government would pay $160 million to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid overtime, interest, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Id . at *4. The parties filed a motion for final settlement approval, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted in part and denied in part the motion. First, the Court was satisfied that the settlement negotiations were conducted in good faith; without collusion or preferential treatment, and with an interest in ultimately resolving the case by settlement. Id . at *5. The Court further reasoned that there were substantial risks to further litigation, which likely would be expensive, complex, and of substantial duration. The Court also found that the terms of the settlement were fair and that the class members would receive over 65% of the maximum amount they could have recovered if they had prevailed at trial, minus taxes and attorneys’ fees. Id . at *12. The Court noted that class counsel favored approval of the settlement agreement, and only three class members out of over 3,200 objected to the settlement terms, which suggested that the vast majority of the class members were satisfied with the settlement. Id . at *14-15. Thus, the Court ruled that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. In addition, the Court held that the recommended incentive awards of $20,000 for each named Plaintiff were reasonable, especially given the size of the settlement. Id . at *16. As to the attorneys’ fee award, class counsel requested an award of $48 million or 30% of the $160 million common fund. Id . at *25. Although the Court agreed that class counsel provided excellent representation to the class, it held that a 30% award would not be reasonable. The Court determined while a fee of 30% may be appropriate in some overtime cases, it opined that due to the enormous common fund, an award of 20%, or $32 million would sufficiently award class counsel for their representation. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion for final settlement approval. Miguel-Sanchez, et al. v. Mesa Packing, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202330 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of migrant and seasonal workers, brought a putative class action alleging multiple claims, including wage & hour violations pursuant to the California Labor Code and violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, as well as a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act. The parties reached a settlement, and Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. For purposes of settlement, Plaintiffs requested that the Court certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of the persons that worked for Defendant, a farm labor contractor, as non-exempt piece-rate workers during the relevant class period. In exchange for release of the claims, Defendant agreed to pay $1,850,000 (“the gross settlement amount”), which included: (i) payments for attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to class counsel (not to exceed $400,000 for fees and $7,500 for costs); (ii) $7,500 in incentive payments to each of the named Plaintiffs, and (iii) settlement benefits to the class members. The net settlement