18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 711 T.K., et al. v. Bytedance Technology Co ., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59502 (N.D. Ill. March 29, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of minor children and their mothers, filed a class action alleging that Defendants tracked, collected, and disclosed personally identifiable information and viewing data belonging to TikTok users under the age of 13 without parental consent in violation of state and federal privacy laws. Id . at *2. The parties ultimately settled the claims and the Court granted preliminary settlement approval. Subsequently, Plaintiffs moved for final settlement approval and class counsel moved for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court denied the motion. First, the Court determined that the deadlines for class members to file objections to the proposed settlement were extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that class members had not received sufficient notice of the change prior to the passage of the deadline. The Court thus ruled that it could not conduct a final review or approve the proposed settlement without supplemental notice to class members and an extension to the deadline. In addition, an objector filed a motion to intervene as of right, or in the alternative, to intervene permissively. The Court denied the motion to intervene. The Court opined that as a member of the proposed settlement class, the objector could address his concerns at the final fairness hearing following the class review period, which would not require his intervention in to the action. Further, the Court held that by objecting to the proposed settlement, the objector preserved his right to appeal, and thus, his interest was not impaired within the meaning of Rule 24(e). Id . at *9. The Court also ruled that permissive intervention would not serve the interests of justice because the objector could pursue fully his objections moving forward. Accordingly, the Court also denied the motion to intervene. Toro, et al. v. Centene Management, Co., LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86088 (E.D. Mo. May 5, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of Care Management Employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The parties ultimately settled the matter and the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary settlement approval. Under the terms of the settlement, 1,228 individuals would receive settlement checks representing approximately 63% of the alleged overtime wages owed and averaging $1,775 per collective action member. The Court found that the settlement resolved a bona fide dispute, as the parties contested key issues, including the fundamental questions of whether the Care Management Employees were properly classified as exempt and how many hours per week these employees worked. The Court opined that the proposed settlement was reasonable and fair to all parties. As to the attorneys’ fee request, Plaintiffs’ counsel sought a fee representing 35% of the gross settlement fund and reasonable expenses. The Court concluded that the case involved complex legal and factual issues and substantial exchanges of discovery between the parties. Id . at *8. The Court determined that Plaintiffs’ counsel incurred substantial risk by pursuing the litigation and obtained an excellent result for the collective action members. Accordingly, the Court granted the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs also requested service awards for the named Plaintiffs and opt- in Plaintiffs. The Court granted the service awards because Plaintiffs’ counsel affirmed that these individuals "provided factual information and otherwise assisted Plaintiffs’ counsel with the prosecution of this litigation, and filed this suit knowing that future employers may not hire them because they filed a lawsuit against a former employer." Id . at *11. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary settlement approval. Tsui, et al. v. Wal-Mart, Inc. , Case No. 20-CV-12309 (D. Mass. April 30, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay regular wages or salary during short-term military leave in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”). The parties ultimately settled the matter and Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval. The Court granted the motion. The Court found that the proposed settlement class was sufficiently defined for purposes of the class- wide settlement. The Court determined that the settlement class met the requirements of Rule 23, since: (i) the class was over 75,000 members; (ii) there were common issues of fact and law regarding whether Defendant’s practice of providing more favorable benefits for non-military leaves than for short-term military leave violated the USERRA: (iii) Plaintiff’s claims were typical to those of other class members; (iv) Plaintiff was an adequate class representative and counsel was experienced in USERRA class action litigation; (v) common question of fact and law predominated; and (vi) a class action would be the superior method to resolve the claims because of the modest settlement amounts and significant costs of litigation. The Court also determined that the settlement agreement was a result of extensive, arms-length negotiations between counsel, which had been negotiated after significant discovery and led to a satisfactory result for class members. The Court likewise found the proposed notice to class members was also sufficient. For these reasons, the Court granted the motion for preliminary settlement approval.