carolyn h. cottrell (sbn 166977) david c. leimbach (sbn ... · 1 declaration of carolyn hunt...

DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Jones, et al. v. CertifiedSafety, Inc.; Lead Case No. 3:17-cv-02229-EMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977) David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409) Michelle S. Lim (SBN 315691) Scott L. Gordon (SBN 319872) SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [Additional Counsel listed on next page] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes and Collective

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. CERTIFIEDSAFETY, INC. Defendants.

Lead Case No. 3:17-cv-02229-EMC Consolidated with 3:17-cv-03892-EMC (Crummie) Related to: 3:18-cv-04379-EMC (Ross)

3:19-cv-01338-EMC (Jones II) 3:19-cv-01380-EMC (Jones III) 3:19-cv-01381-EMC (Jones IV) 3:19-cv-01427-EMC (East) 3:19-cv-01428-EMC (Jones V)

DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Date: January 2, 2020 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 5 (17th Floor) Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen Jones Complaint filed: April 21, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02229-EMC Document 206-1 Filed 11/22/19 of 32

DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) Arby Aiwazian (SBN 269827) Jill J. Parker (SBN 274230) LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes and Collective


1 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I, Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed and in good standing to practice law in the

courts of California (No. 166977) and am admitted to practice law before this Court, the United

States District Court Northern District of California.

2. I am a partner at the law firm of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP

(“SWCKW”). SWCKW specializes in class, collective, and PAGA litigation in state and federal

court.

3. I am lead counsel of record for Harold Jones, Tierre Crummie, Genea Knight,

Marcellous Ross, and Michael East, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

(“Plaintiffs”), in the above-captioned cases. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement. I am familiar with the

file, the documents, and the history related to these cases. The following statements are based on

my personal knowledge and review of the files. If called to do so, I could and would testify

competently thereto.

4. A true and correct copy of the fully-executed Stipulation of Class, Collective, and

Representative Action Settlement (the “Settlement Agreement” or the “Settlement”) is attached

hereto as Exhibit 1. The Notice of Class Action Settlement and Hearing Date for Court Approval

(“Class Notice”), the Notice of Collective Action Settlement (“Collective Notice”), and the Notice

of Class and Collective Action Settlement and Hearing Date for Court Approval (“Class/Collective

Notice”) (collectively, the “Notices of Settlement”) are attached to the Settlement as Exhibits A-

C, respectively.

QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE, AND EXPERTISE

5. SWCKW is regarded as one of the leading private plaintiff’s firms in wage and hour

class actions and employment class actions. In November 2012, the Recorder listed the firm as one

of the “top 10 go-to plaintiffs’ employment firms in Northern California.” The partners and

attorneys have litigated major wage and hour class actions, have won several prestigious awards,

and sit on important boards and committees in the legal community. SWCKW was founded by

Todd Schneider in 1993, and I have been a member of the firm since 1995.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6. SWCKW has acted or is acting as class counsel in numerous cases. A partial list of

cases which have been certified and/or settled as class actions includes: Soto, et al. v. O.C.

Communications, Inc., et al. (Case No. 3:17-cv-00251-VC) (Northern District of California, Oct.

23, 2019) (final approval of a hybrid Fair Labor Standards Act and California and Washington law

Rule 23 action with joint employer allegations); Manni v. Eugene N. Gordon, Inc. d/b/a La-Z-Boy

Furniture Galleries (Case No. 34-2017-00223592) (Sacramento Superior Court) (final approval of

a class action settlement for failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum and

overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, waiting time penalties, and failure to

provide itemized wage statements, under California law); Van Liew v. North Star Emergency

Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. RG17876878) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of

a class action settlement for failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum and

overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for necessary business

expenditures, waiting time penalties, and failure to provide itemized wage statements, under

federal law); Asalati v. Intel Corp. (Case No. 16cv302615) (Santa Clara Superior Court) (final

approval of a class and collective action settlement for failure to pay for all hours worked, failure

to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for necessary business

expenditures, failure to adhere to California record keeping requirements, waiting time penalties,

and failure to provide itemized wage statements, under federal and California law); Harmon, et al.

v. Diamond Wireless, LLC, (Case No. 34-2012-00118898) (Sacramento Superior Court) (final

approval of a class action settlement for failure to pay wages free and clear, failure to pay overtime

and minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay full wages when due,

failure to adhere to California record keeping requirements, and failure to provide adequate

seating, under California law); Aguilar v. Hall AG Enterprises, Inc., et al., (Case No. BCV-16-

10994-DRL) (Kern County Superior Court) (final approval of a class action settlement for failure

to provide meal and rest periods, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay

minimum and overtime wages, waiting time penalties, failure to provide itemized wage statements,

and failure to pay undiscounted wages, under California law); Viceral and Krueger v. Mistras

Group, Inc., (Case No. 3:15-cv-02198-EMC) (Chen, J.) (Northern District of California) (final




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

approval of a class and collective action settlement for failure to compensate for all hours worked,

including overtime, under federal and California law); Jeter-Polk, et al. v. Casual Male Store,

LLC, et al., (Case No. 5:14-CV-00891) (Central District of California) (final approval of a class

action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to compensate for all hours

worked, failure to pay overtime wages, unpaid wages and waiting time penalties, and failure to

provide itemized wage statements); Meza, et al. v. S.S. Skikos, Inc., et al., (Case No. 15-cv-01889-

TEH) (Northern District of California) (final approval of class and collective action settlement for

failure to compensate for all hours worked, including overtime, under federal and California law,

failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for necessary business uniforms,

failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage

statements); Holmes, et al v. Xpress Global Systems, Inc., (Case No. 34-2015-00180822)

(Sacramento Superior Court) (final approval of a class action settlement for failure to provide meal

and rest breaks and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements); Guilbaud, et al. v. Sprint

Nextel Corp. et al., (Case No. 3:13-cv-04357-VC) (Northern District of California) (final approval

of a class and collective action settlement for failure to compensate for all hours worked, including

overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for necessary business

uniforms, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized

wage statements); Molina, et al. v. Railworks Track Systems, Inc., (Case No. BCV-15-10135)

(Kern County Superior Court) (final approval of a class action settlement for failure to provide

meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, off-the-clocker work, failure to pay full

wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements); Allen, et al.

v. County of Monterey, et al., (Case No. 5:13-cv-01659) (Northern District of California)

(settlement between FLSA Plaintiffs and Defendant to provide relief to affected employees);

Barrera v. Radix Cable Holdings, Inc., et al., (Case No. CIV 1100505) (Marin County Superior

Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, off-

the-clock work by, failure to provide overtime compensation to, failure to reimburse business

expenditures to, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate

itemized wage statements to retention specialists working for cable companies); Glass Dimensions,




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Inc., et al. v. State Street Corp. et al., (Case No. 1:10-cv-10588) (District of Massachusetts) (final

approval of class action settlement for claims of breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing in

violation of ERISA); Friend, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation, (Case No. 3:07-052222) (Northern

District of California) (settlement of claims that rental car company misclassified non-exempt

employees, failed to pay wages, failed to pay premium pay, and failed to provide meal periods and

rest periods); Hollands v. Lincare, Inc., et al., (Case No. CGC-07-465052) (San Francisco County

Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for overtime pay, off-the-clock work,

unreimbursed expenses, and other wage and hour claims on behalf of a class of center managers);

Jantz, et al. v. Colvin, (Case No. 531-2006-00276X) (In the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission Baltimore Field Office) (final approval of class action settlement for the denial of

promotions based on targeted disabilities); Shemaria v. County of Marin, (Case No. CV 082718)

(Marin County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement on behalf of a class of

individuals with mobility disabilities denied access to various facilities owned, operated, and/or

maintained by the County of Marin); Perez, et al. v. First American Title Ins. Co., (Case No. 2:08-

cv-01184) (District of Arizona) (final approval of class action settlement in action challenging

unfair discrimination by title insurance company); Perez v. Rue21, Inc., et al., (Case No.

CISCV167815) (Santa Cruz County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for

failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work performed by, a class of retail

employees); Sosa, et al. v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., et al., (Case No. RG 08424366)

(Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide

meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work performed by, a class of ice cream

manufacturing employees); Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc., et al. (Case Nos. 3:12-cv-04137 and

4:13-cv-03091) (Northern District of California) (certified class action on behalf of delivery

drivers allegedly misclassified as independent contractors); Choul, et al. v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd.

(Case Nos. 8:08-cv-90, 8:08-cv-99) (District of Nebraska) (final approval of class action settlement

for off-the-clock work by, and failure to provide overtime compensation to, production-line

employees of meat-packing plant); Morales v. Farmland Foods, Inc. (Case No. 8:08-cv-504)

(District of Nebraska) (FLSA certification for off-the-clock work by, and failure to provide




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-packing plant); Barlow, et al. v.

PRN Ambulance Inc. (Case No. BC396728) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval

of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to and for off-the-clock work

by certified emergency medical technicians); Espinosa, et al. v. National Beef, et al. (Case No.

ECU0467) (Imperial Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for off-the-clock

work by, and failure to provide overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-

packing plant); Wolfe, et al. v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, et al. (Case Nos. CGC-08-

479518 and CGC-09-489635) (San Francisco Superior Court) (final approval of class action

settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work by, employees

at check cashing stores); Carlson v. eHarmony (Case No. BC371958) (Los Angeles County

Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement on behalf of gays and lesbians who were

denied use of eHarmony); Salcido v. Cargill (Case Nos. 1:07-CV-01347-LJO-GSA,1:08-CV-

00605-LJO-GSA) (Eastern District of California) (final approval of class action settlement for off-

the-clock work by production-line employees of meat-packing plant); Elkin v. Six Flags (Case No.

BC342633) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of class action settlement for

missed meal and rest periods on behalf of hourly workers at Six Flags amusement parks); Jimenez

v. Perot Systems Corp. (Case No. RG07335321) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval

of class action settlement for misclassification of hospital clerical workers); Chau v. CVS RX

Services, Inc. (Case No. BC349224) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (final approval of class

action settlement for failure to pay overtime to CVS pharmacists); Reed v. CALSTAR (Case No.

RG04155105) (Alameda County Superior Court) (certified class action on behalf of flight nurses);

National Federation of the Blind v. Target (Case No. C 06-01802 MHP) (N.D. Cal.) (certified

class action on behalf of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have tried to access

Target.com); Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2004 WL 2370633) (N.D. Cal.) (certified

national class action on behalf of deaf employees of UPS); Satchell v. FedEx Express, Inc. (Case

No. 03-02659 SI) (N.D. Cal.) (certified regional class action alleging widespread discrimination

within FedEx); Siddiqi v. Regents of the University of California (Case No. C-99-0790 SI) (N.D.

Cal.) (certified class action in favor of deaf plaintiffs alleging disability access violations at the




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

University of California); Lopez v. San Francisco Unified School District (Case No. C-99-03260

SI) (N.D. Cal.) (certified class action in favor of plaintiffs in class action against school district for

widespread disability access violations); Campos v. San Francisco State University (Case No. C-

97-02326 MCC) (N.D. Cal.) (certified class action in favor of disabled plaintiffs for widespread

disability access violations); Singleton v. Regents of the University of California (Case No.

807233-1) (Alameda County Superior Court) (class settlement for women alleging gender

discrimination at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory); McMaster v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling

Co. (Case No. RG04173735) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of class action

settlement for drive-time required of Coca-Cola account managers); Portugal v. Macy’s West, Inc.

(Case No. BC324247) (Los Angeles County Superior Court) (California statewide wage and hour

“misclassification” class action resulting in a class-wide $3.25 million settlement); Taormina v.

Siebel Systems, Inc. (Case No. RG05219031) (Alameda County Superior Court) (final approval of

class action settlement for misclassification of Siebel’s inside sales employees); Joseph v. The

Limited, Inc. (Case No. CGC-04-437118) (San Francisco County Superior Court) (final approval

of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest periods to employees of The Limited

stores); Rios v. Siemens Corp. (Case No. C05-04697 PJH) (N.D. Cal.) (final approval of class

action settlement for failure to pay accrued vacation pay upon end of employment); DeSoto v.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Case No. RG0309669) (Alameda County Superior Court) and Lenahan v.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Case No. 3-02-CV-000045 (SRC) (TJB)) (final approval of class action

settlement for failure to pay Sears drivers for all hours worked); among many others.

7. Nearly my entire legal career has been devoted to advocating for the rights of

individuals who have been subjected to illegal pay policies, discrimination, harassment and

retaliation and representing employees in wage and hour and discrimination class actions. I have

litigated hundreds of wage and hour, employment discrimination and civil-rights actions, and I

manage many of the firm’s current cases in these areas. I am a member of the State Bar of

California, and have had memberships with Public Justice, the National Employment Lawyers

Association, the California Employment Lawyers Association, and the Consumer Attorneys of

California. I served on the Board of Directors for the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and co-chaired its Women’s Caucus. I was named one of the “Top Women Litigators for 2010” by

the Daily Journal. In 2012, I was nominated for Woman Trial Lawyer of the Year by the

Consumer Attorneys of California. I have been selected as a Super Lawyer every year since 2014. I

earned my Bachelor’s degree from the University of California, and I am a graduate of the

University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.

CASE SUMMARY AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

8. Defendant CertifiedSafety, Inc. (“Defendant” or “CertifiedSafety”) serves the oil

refinery industry, providing its clients with personnel who specialize in planning, implementing,

and executing safety protocols at refinery operations. Its clients are oil refinery operators in the

United States, including but not limited to Chevron, Andeavor/Tesoro, Phillips 66, Citgo, United

Refining, and Shell.1

9. CertifiedSafety’s Safety Attendants and Safety Foremen, who are classified as non-

exempt employees, carry out these safety duties at refinery operations throughout the United

States, including in California, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, Alaska, and numerous other

states.2 They provide support for the refinery companies’ operations and protocols, including

identifying, mitigating, and reporting potential safety hazards at their assigned worksites.

10. Plaintiffs allege that Class Members—who work long and difficult hours, including

shifts of 12 hours or more, up to seven days per week, often far away from their homes—

experience wage and hour violations in their work with CertifiedSafety, and with the refineries as

alleged joint employers.

11. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the Class Members experience significant amounts

of pre- and post-shift off-the-clock work, including unpaid, on-duty time traveling to the actual

work location through the massive refinery complexes, donning and doffing protective gear,

undergoing security inspections, filling out paperwork, attending safety meetings, and retrieving

required equipment. Plaintiffs also allege that Class Members are required to undergo unpaid

1 Each of these refinery operators has been named as a Defendant on a joint employer basis in the Actions. CertifiedSafety and these refinery operators are collectively referred to as “Defendants.” 2 Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes and Collective are referred to hereafter as “Class Members” or “Safety Attendants” for ease of reading.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

training sessions in California in order to begin working for CertifiedSafety. Plaintiffs further

allege that the Class Members cannot take timely, full, off-duty meal and rest periods, due to a lack

of break relief and the need to traverse the refinery to get to designated break locations. Moreover,

Plaintiffs allege that the Class Members regularly travel to refineries around the country for multi-

week assignments, but are not adequately reimbursed for travel and lodging expenses, and are

required to pay out-of-pocket for equipment including fire-protective gear, gloves, and steel-toed

boots.

12. Plaintiffs allege that, as joint employers, CertifiedSafety and the refinery Defendants

are jointly liable for the violations at issue. Defendants have at all times denied, and continue to

deny, all of these allegations, including Plaintiffs’ theory that CertifiedSafety and the refinery

Defendants are joint employers, and deny any and all liability for Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants

further deny that Plaintiffs’ allegations are appropriate for class/collective and/or representative

treatment for any purpose other than for settlement purposes only.

13. Plaintiffs and SWCKW have filed a series of related actions, in addition to the lead

consolidated Jones action, to bring the wage and hour claims, including those under Illinois and

Minnesota law, against CertifiedSafety and refineries on a joint employer basis.

Plaintiff Ross filed Ross on July 18, 2018, against CertifiedSafety and Chevron.3 Plaintiff

Ross alleges similar wage and hour claims against these Defendants, on behalf of a putative

FLSA collective and a putative California class.

Plaintiff Jones filed Jones II (Case No. No. 3:19-cv-01338-EMC) on March 12, 2019, which

alleges similar wage and hour claims under the FLSA, California, Washington, and Minnesota

law against CertifiedSafety and Andeavor/Tesoro on behalf a putative FLSA collective and

putative California, Washington, and Minnesota classes.

Plaintiff Jones filed Jones III (Case No. 3:19-cv-01380-EMC) on March 14, 2019, which

alleges similar wage and hour claims under the FLSA, California, and Washington law against

CertifiedSafety and Phillips 66 on behalf a putative FLSA collective and putative California,

3 Valero entities were also named as Defendants, but the Parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss them.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and Washington classes.

Plaintiff Jones filed Jones IV (Case No. 3:19-cv-01381-EMC) on March 14, 2019, which

alleges similar wage and hour claims under the FLSA, California, and Illinois law against

CertifiedSafety and Citgo on behalf a putative FLSA collective and putative California and

Washington classes.

Plaintiff Michael East filed East (Case No. 3:19-cv-01427-EMC) on March 18, 2019, which

alleges similar wage and hour claims under the FLSA and California law against

CertifiedSafety and United Refining on behalf a putative FLSA collective and a putative

California class.

Plaintiff Jones filed Jones V (Case No. 3:19-cv-01428-EMC) on March 18, 2019, which

alleges similar wage and hour claims under the FLSA, California, and Washington law against

CertifiedSafety and Shell on behalf a putative FLSA collective and putative California, and

Washington classes

14. At the time of mediation, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel intended to file additional

actions to bring wage and hour claims under Ohio and Alaska law on behalf of putative Ohio and

Alaska classes. As a result of the Settlement, the Parties agree that Plaintiffs will amend the

operative complaint in Jones to add (1) Sandra Turner and George Azevedo, Jr. as Named

Plaintiffs and Class Representatives, and (2) Ohio and Alaska law wage and hour claims, brought

by Turner and Azevedo, respectively, individually and on behalf of putative Rule 23 Ohio and

Alaska classes. See Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 3.20, 5.1.1. The Ohio and Alaska Classes

incorporate class periods that extend back three years from the April 23, 2019 mediation. See

Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 2.46.

15. Additionally, 384 Safety Attendants have successfully opted in as FLSA Opt In

Plaintiffs in the Jones action. 87 Safety Attendants have filed opt-in forms in the Ross action; the

Safety Attendants whose opt-in forms were stricken in Jones constitute many of the Opt-In

Plaintiffs in Ross.

16. Plaintiffs in Jones and Crummie stipulated to appoint SWCKW as lead counsel on

behalf of the Plaintiffs and putative Class and Collective Members in Jones and Crummie.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Discovery

17. The Parties have engaged in extensive discovery, including written discovery and

depositions.

18. On January 10, 2018, Plaintiffs deposed CertifiedSafety’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee,

Vice President of Human Resources Steve Hines. The deposition addressed topics including

Defendant’s corporate organization and decision-making responsibilities; its policies, practices,

procedures, and systems for wage and hour issues, compensation, timekeeping, and scheduling;

relevant investigations and reports; and the Class Members’ job duties and responsibilities, the

tools, equipment and gear that they use, and any work that they perform outside of their scheduled

shifts. The deposition also covered topics relating to Plaintiffs’ joint employer claims.

19. Defendant took the depositions of Plaintiff Jones and Plaintiff Knight on January 15,

2018, and Plaintiff Crummie on January 11, 2018.

20. Plaintiffs’ counsel have additionally completed extensive outreach with Class

Members, including over 240 in-depth intakes. The intakes covered topics including dates and

locations of work, hours of work, pre-shift and post-shift off-the-clock work, meal and rest breaks,

and reimbursement of work-related expenses.

21. Through the outreach process, Plaintiffs garnered substantial factual background

regarding the alleged violations and the joint employer claims, which Plaintiffs’ counsel utilized to

build their case and proffer detailed allegations in the operative complaints. Multiple Class

Members that completed intakes provided additional documents to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

22. CertifiedSafety has additionally produced over 1,400 documents, including its

general policies as well as time records, payroll records, and job assignment documents applicable

to Plaintiffs Jones, Knight, and Crummie. CertifiedSafety also provided classwide figures,

including the total number of class members, number of shifts worked, average hourly rates, and

additional data points, ahead of each mediation, to enable Plaintiffs’ counsel to evaluate damages

on a Class and Collective basis. This discovery was produced on an informal basis to facilitate

mediation, and updated ahead of each mediation.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23. Plaintiffs propounded formal discovery requests on CertifiedSafety, consisting of

135 requests for production of documents and nine special interrogatories, on March 21, 2018.

CertifiedSafety served objections to these requests on May 7, 2018, but did not make substantive

responses.

24. Thereafter, Plaintiffs and CertifiedSafety engaged in considerable meet and confer

effort regarding substantive responses. This process was delayed when CertifiedSafety’s initial

counsel, Littler Mendelson, P.C. and Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom, LLP, withdrew from

the action on June 22, 2018, and were replaced by Winston & Strawn LLP. Id.; see ECF 133-135,

139-140. Ultimately, the Parties agreed to defer further meet and confer while they completed the

second mediation that resulted in the instant Settlement.

Mediation

25. Plaintiffs and CertifiedSafety first mediated this dispute on January 23, 2018 before

Jeff Ross, a respected and experienced wage and hour mediator. This initial mediation was

unsuccessful, and litigation continued in the ordinary course, including the filing of the later

actions and service of formal discovery requests.

26. On April 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs and CertifiedSafety participated in a second

mediation session with Paul Grossman, another highly respected and experienced wage and hour

mediator The session lasted some 10 hours; at the end of the night, Mr. Grossman issued a

mediator’s proposal, which contained the essential terms of the instant Settlement. All Parties

accepted the proposal on that date.

27. Throughout the mediation process, the Parties engaged in serious and arm’s-length

negotiations, culminating in the mediator’s proposal. After the mediation, counsel for the Parties

worked to finalize the proposed long-form Settlement and corresponding notice documents, subject

to the Court’s approval. As the Settlement is complex, involving hybrid Rule 23 and FLSA claims,

numerous Defendants, and the resolution of eight separate actions as well as two additional

potential actions, the drafting process was a lengthy.

28. After an initial draft was completed, six sets of subsequent edits were required to

arrive at an agreement that was acceptable to all Parties and counsel, along with a separate drafting




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and revision process for the Class, Collective, and Class/Collective Notices. Counsel for the Parties

advised the Court of the status of the drafting process, culminating in a stipulation that set finalized

deadlines for the completion of the Settlement Agreement and filing the instant motion.

29. The Settlement Agreement was fully-executed on November 21, 2019.

THE SETTLEMENT

Basic Terms and Value of the Settlement

30. CertifiedSafety has agreed to pay a non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount of

$6,000,000 to settle all aspects of the case. The Net Settlement Amount, which is the amount

available to pay settlement awards to the Class Members, is defined as the Gross Settlement

Amount less: the payment made to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency

(“LWDA”) pursuant to PAGA ($50,000); any enhancement payments awarded to the Class

Representatives (up to $15,000 for Plaintiffs Jones, Knight, and Crummie; up to $10,000 for

Plaintiffs Ross and East; and up to $5,000 for Plaintiffs Azevedo and Turner); the Settlement

Administrator’s fees and costs (estimated at $66,000.00); and any attorneys’ fees and costs

awarded to Plaintiffs’ counsel (fees of up to 35% of the Gross Settlement Amount, or $2,100,000,

plus costs not to exceed $70,000).

31. The Parties agree to allocate $50,000.00 of the Gross Settlement Amount to the

settlement of the PAGA claims, which the Parties believe in good faith is a fair and reasonable

apportionment. Id. The Settlement Administrator shall pay 75%, or $37,500.00, of this amount to

the LWDA, and 25%, or $12,500.00, shall remain as part of the Net Settlement Amount.

32. The Gross Settlement Amount is a negotiated amount that resulted from substantial

arms’ length negotiations and significant investigation and analysis by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Plaintiffs’ counsel based their damages analysis and settlement negotiations on informal discovery,

including the payroll and timekeeping data, depositions, and approximately 240 interviews with

Class Members.

33. Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained average rates of pay for Safety Attendants in each

jurisdiction (California, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and Alaska, along with the average

rate of pay for FLSA Opt-In Plaintiffs who did not work in any of those states), which were then




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

used in conjunction with amounts of unpaid time to determine estimated damages for off-the-clock

and overtime violations. Based on outreach analysis, Plaintiffs applied a high-end damage

assumption of 1.75 hours of off-the-clock time per day, along with each Safety Attendant missing

80% of their meal and rest periods.

34. Using these assumptions and further assuming that Plaintiffs and the Class Members

would certify all of their claims and prevail at trial, Plaintiffs’ counsel calculated the total potential

exposure if Plaintiffs fully prevailed on all of their claims—inclusive of derivative claims,

penalties claims, and claims for liquidated damages from willful or bad faith conduct—at

approximately $45.2 million.

35. Plaintiffs calculated that unpaid wages owed, based on the assumption of 1.75 hours

of off-the-clock work in each workday and inclusive of overtime, would total approximately $11.3

million for all Class Members in all jurisdictions. The bulk of these unpaid wages ($7.6 million)

are owed to the approximately 1,370 California Class Members, who worked well in excess of half

of the shifts of the Safety Attendants at issue in this lawsuit. Approximately $1.5 million is owed

to the approximately 790 Washington Class Members.4 The $11.3 total amount includes off-the-

clock damages for unpaid training time in California. Additionally, these amounts are subject to

liquidated damages in certain jurisdictions, assuming that willfulness could be demonstrated,

which would increase the potential unpaid wage damages to approximately $14 million.

36. California and Washington Class Members are also able to recover for meal and rest

break violations. Based on the assumption that 80% of their meal and rest periods are missed or

otherwise non-compliant, California Class Members are owed approximately $3.5 million under

the premium pay provisions of the California Labor Code, taking into account approximately 203

premium pay hours paid by CertifiedSafetyWashington Class Members are owed approximately

$300,000 under Washington law, which requires that Class Members receive straight time pay for

the entire duration of any missed or non-compliant break.

4 Plaintiffs separately analyzed off-the-clock work for the remaining jurisdictions; as these jurisdictions have between approximately 70 and 270 Safety Attendants during the relevant time periods, respectively, the damages amounts are much smaller than the California and Washington damages.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37. California Class Members are also able to recover directly for unreimbursed business

expenses under California Labor Code § 2802, which Plaintiffs estimate at approximately

$840,000.

38. Totaling the estimated damages for substantive (non-derivative) violations under

California, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, Alaska law and the FLSA, as applicable, for

unpaid off-the-clock work, meal and rest period violations, and unreimbursed business expenses,

Plaintiffs estimate that the total substantive damages are approximately $18.6 million. This amount

includes liquidated damages where applicable, but does not include derivative claims (e.g., waiting

time penalties, wage statement claims) and penalty claims (e.g., PAGA claims and Washington

Consumer Protection Act treble damages).

39. For derivate and penalty claims, Plaintiffs estimate the waiting time penalty claim

for California Class Members under California Labor Code § 203 at approximately $8.7 million5

and the wage statement penalty under California Labor Code § 226 at approximately $1.1 million.

40. Plaintiffs estimate the PAGA penalties for applicable California Safety Attendants at

approximately $6.8 million.

41. Plaintiffs estimate the treble damages component for Washington Safety Attendants

under the Washington Consumer Protection Act at approximately $6.6 million.

42. Additionally, Plaintiffs estimate damages for unpaid wages upon termination for

Minnesota Class Members at approximately $775,000, and damages for failure to keep accurate

payroll records for Minnesota Class Members at approximately $982,000. Plaintiffs estimate

damages for unpaid wages upon termination for Illinois Class Members at approximately

$183,000, and damages for unpaid wages upon termination for Alaska Class Members at

approximately $1.4 million.6

5 This amount, and other figures for unpaid wages upon termination, assume that each Class Member was terminated once during their tenure with CertifiedSafety. 6 Under Alaska’s provision for unpaid wages at termination (AS 23.05.140), the penalty wages may continue for a period of up to 90 days, which results in the relatively high damages for Alaska Class Members.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43. Totaling the estimated damages for derivative and penalty claims violations,

Plaintiffs estimate that the total derivative and penalty damages are approximately $26.6 million.

44. The negotiated non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount of $6,000,000 represents

more than 53% of the approximately $11.3 million that Plaintiffs calculated for the core unpaid

wages claims. When adding meal and rest break, derivative claims, and potential penalties, the

$6,000,000 million settlement amount represents approximately 13.3% of Defendants’ total

potential exposure of $45.2 million. Again, these figures are based on Plaintiffs’ assessment of a

best-case-scenario. To have obtained such a result at trial, Plaintiffs would have had to prove that

all Class Members experienced the violations at the levels described above for every shift and

every assignment, and that Defendants acted knowingly or in bad faith.

45. Plaintiffs and their counsel considered the significant risks of continued litigation,

described hereinafter, when considering the proposed Settlement. These risks were front and

center, particularly given the nature of the off-the-clock work and that the Safety Attendants work

in numerous and varying refinery locations, which would invariably complicate certification

efforts and proving the claims on the merits.

46. In contrast, the Settlement will result in immediate and certain payment to Class

Members of meaningful amounts. The average recovery is $1,199 per Class Member (this amount

divides the net recovery by total number of Class Members), or approximately $119.50 per

Workweek.7 This amount provides significant compensation to the Class Members, and the

Settlement provides an excellent recovery in the face of expanding and uncertain litigation. In light

of all of the risks, the settlement amount is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Class and Collective Definitions

47. An individual is eligible to share in the proposed Settlement if he or she belongs to

any of the following:

The “California Rule 23 Class” means all current or former Safety Attendants and Safety

Foremen employed by CertifiedSafety, or who attended pre-employment training conducted by

7 The net recovery per workweek does not incorporate the workweek weightings that reflect the increased value of state law claims and differing average rates of pay by state.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CertifiedSafety, in the State of California at any time from April 21, 2013 to the date of

Preliminary Approval.

The “Washington Rule 23 Class” means all current or former Safety Attendants and Safety

Foremen employed by CertifiedSafety in the State of Washington at any time from April 21, 2014

to the date of Preliminary Approval.

The “Minnesota Rule 23 Class” means all current or former Safety Attendants and Safety

Foremen employed by CertifiedSafety in the State of Minnesota at any time from March 12, 2016

to the date of Preliminary Approval.

The “Illinois Rule 23 Class” means all current or former Safety Attendants and Safety Foremen

employed by CertifiedSafety in the State of Illinois at any time from March 14, 2016 to the date of


The “Ohio Rule 23 Class” means all current or former Safety Attendants and Safety Foremen

employed by CertifiedSafety in the State of Ohio at any time from April 23, 2016 to the date of


The “Alaska Rule 23 Class” means all current or former Safety Attendants and Safety Foremen

employed by CertifiedSafety in the State of Alaska at any time from April 23, 2016 to the date of


Opt-In Plaintiffs are all Safety Attendants and Safety Foremen on whose behalf Plaintiffs’

counsel has filed a consent to join the FLSA collective in any of the Actions, before the date of


Allocations and Awards

48. The Net Settlement Amount to be paid to Class Members is approximately

$3,651,500.

49. Class Members will each receive a settlement award check without the need to

submit a claim form.8

8 Class Members are not required to submit an Opt-In Form to receive payment under the Settlement for their work in California, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and Alaska during the relevant time periods. However, only Opt In Plaintiffs will be credited for work in other states,




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

50. Each Class Member’s settlement share will be determined based on the total number

of weeks that the respective Class Member worked for Defendants during the applicable

limitations period(s). Specifically, each Class Member will be credited for the number of weeks

that he or she worked for CertifiedSafety at any time (1) from April 21, 2013 to the date of

Preliminary Approval for California Class Members; (2) from April 21, 2014 to the date of

Preliminary Approval for Washington Class Members; (3) from March 12, 2016 to the date of

Preliminary Approval for Minnesota Class Members; (4) from March 14, 2016 to the date of

Preliminary Approval for Illinois Class Members; (5) from April 23, 2016 (i.e., the mediation date)

to the date of Preliminary Approval for Ohio Class Members; (6) from April 23, 2016 (i.e., the

mediation date) to the date of Preliminary Approval for Alaska Class Members; and (7) if the

Participating Individual is an Opt In Plaintiff, in all states other than California, Washington,

Minnesota, Illinois, Alaska, and Ohio, from the three years preceding the date that Plaintiffs’

counsel filed a Consent to Join form on behalf of the Opt In Plaintiff to the date of Preliminary

Approval. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.13.2.1.

51. Each Workweek will be equal to one settlement share, but to reflect the increased

value of state law claims and differing average rates of pay by state, Workweeks during which

work was performed in California, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and Alaska will be

weighted more heavily. Specifically, Workweeks during which work was performed in California

(including Workweeks in which a Participating Individual attended pre-employment training

conducted by CertifiedSafety in California) will be equal to three settlement shares; Workweeks

during which work was performed in Washington or Alaska will be equal to two settlement shares;

Workweeks during which work was performed in Minnesota will be equal to 1.7 settlement shares;

Workweeks during which work was performed in Illinois will be equal to 1.3 settlement shares;

Workweeks during which work was performed in Ohio will be equal to 1.1 settlement shares; and

Workweeks during which an Opt In Plaintiff performed work in any state other than California,

as the damages for work in those states are attributable to FLSA claims only. Class Members may opt out of the Rule 23 component of the Settlement, but those who are Opt-In Plaintiffs may not opt out of the FLSA component of the Settlement. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.9.2.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Washington, Alaska, Minnesota, Illinois, and Ohio will be equal to one settlement share.9

Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.13.2.2. In the event that a Rule 23 Class Member, who is also an Opt

In Plaintiff, opts out of the Rule 23 component of the Settlement, he or she will receive credit

under the Settlement for all of his or her Workweeks nationwide from the three years preceding the

date that Plaintiffs’ counsel filed his or her Opt-In Form to the date of Preliminary Approval. In

this circumstance, none of the Workweeks will be subject to any weighting (i.e., all Workweeks

will be equal to one settlement share on an FLSA basis), even for work in California, Washington,

Alaska, Minnesota, Illinois, and Ohio. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.13.2.3

52. The total number of settlement shares (as weighted) for all Participating Individuals

will be added together and the Net Settlement Amount will be divided by that total to reach a per

share dollar figure. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.13.2.4. The resulting per share dollar figure will

then be multiplied by each Participating Individual’s number of settlement shares (as weighted) to

determine his or her Individual Settlement Payment.

53. The Class, Collective, and Class/Collective Notices will provide the estimated

Individual Settlement Payment and number of Workweeks for each Class Member, assuming full

participation in the Settlement. Settlement Agreement, Exhs. A-C. Settlement Award and

eligibility determinations will be based on employee workweek information that CertifiedSafety

will provide to the Settlement Administrator; however Class Members will be able to dispute their

workweeks by submitting evidence that they worked more workweeks than shown by

CertifiedSafety’s records. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.11

54. Settlement Awards will be paid to Class Members by the Settlement Administrator

within 30 days after the occurrence of the “Effective Date.” Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.16.

Settlement Award checks will remain valid for 180 days from the date of their issuance. Settlement

Agreement, ¶ 4.17. Any funds from checks that are returned as undeliverable or are not negotiated

within 180 calendar days after issuance shall be tendered to the State Controller’s Office

9 Plaintiffs performed an in-depth analysis of Workweek weightings and the underlying state law provisions to develop the weightings.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Unclaimed Property Division (or similar/equivalent state agency) for the state where the

Participating Individual most recently worked for CertifiedSafety. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.17.

55. Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Settlement Administrator

will provide a Post-Distribution Accounting in accordance with the Northern District’s Procedural

Guidance. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.18.

Scope of Release

56. The releases contemplated by the proposed Settlement are dependent upon whether

the Participating Individual is an Opt In Plaintiff and/or a Rule 23 Class Member, and are tethered

to the factual allegations.

57. Opt In Plaintiffs will release any and all claims under the FLSA based on or arising

out of the same factual predicates of the Actions. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.19.1. Rule 23 Class

Members will release any and all claims under the applicable state law, based on or arising out of

the same factual predicates of the Actions, the Complaints, and/or the allegations in the

Complaints, including all claims that were or could have been raised in the Actions and any other

wage and hour claims for damages, premiums, penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, and equitable

relief. Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 4.19.2-4.19.7. As to Rule 23 Class Members who are not Opt In

Plaintiffs, those who negotiate their Rule 23 Settlement Checks will also release any and all claims

under the FLSA arising from or related to their work for CertifiedSafety in the applicable Rule 23

state(s), based on these same factual predicates. If such a Rule 23 Class Member does not deposit

his or her check, he or she will not release any claims under the FLSA.

58. The releases are effective upon final approval of the Settlement. Settlement

Agreement, ¶ 4.19.1. The release timing extends through the date of preliminary approval, and the

Released Parties are Defendants and their related persons and entities. Settlement Agreement, ¶¶

4.19.8, 2.37. By its express terms, the release only encompasses claims arising from the refinery’s

alleged joint employment of a Participating Individual with CertifiedSafety, and does not extend to

any claims that may arise from the Participating Individual’s direct employment with a refinery

Defendant. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2.37.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

59. The Class Representatives also agree to a general release. Settlement Agreement, ¶

4.21.

Settlement Administration

60. The Parties have agreed to use Heffler Claims Group to administer the Settlement,

for total fees and costs currently estimated at $66,000. The Settlement Administrator will distribute

the Notice of Settlement via mail and email, calculate individual settlement payments, calculate all

applicable payroll taxes, withholdings and deductions, and prepare and issue all disbursements to

Class Members, the LWDA, the Class Representatives, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and applicable state,

and federal tax authorities. Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 4.8, 4.13, 4.15.

61. The Settlement Administrator is also responsible for the timely preparation and filing

of all tax returns and reporting, and will make timely and accurate payment of any and all

necessary taxes and withholdings. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.15.1. The Settlement Administrator

will establish a settlement website that will allow Class Members to view the Class, Collective,

and Class/Collective Notices (in generic form), the Settlement Agreement, and all papers filed by

Class Counsel to obtain preliminary and final approval of the Settlement. Settlement Agreement, ¶

4.8.2. The Settlement Administrator will also establish a toll-free call center for telephone inquiries

from Class Members. Id.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AS TO THE CLASSES AND

APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AS TO THE COLLECTIVE

62. This class action settlement satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b), and it is

fair, reasonable, and adequate in accordance with Rule 23(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court should

preliminary approve the settlement as to the Classes.

63. The Court has already conditionally certified a collective under § 216(b) for

Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, and 438 Safety Attendants have filed opt-in forms in the Jones action.

Defendants have not moved for decertification of the FLSA claim. The proposed Settlement

provides an excellent recovery to the Opt-In Plaintiffs in a reasonable compromise. Accordingly,

the Court should approve the Settlement as to the Collective.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Certification

64. The approximately 1,371 members of the California Class, 792 members of the

Washington Class, 248 members of the Minnesota Class, 115 members of the Illinois class, 264

members of the Ohio class, and 70 members of the Alaska class render each class so large as to

make joinder impracticable. The Class Members may be readily identified from CertifiedSafety’s

payroll records.

65. Plaintiffs contend that common questions of law and fact predominate here,

satisfying paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(3) of Rule 23, as alleged in the operative complaints.

66. Defendants have uniform policies applicable to all Safety Attendants. Specifically,

Plaintiffs allege that Safety Attendants all perform essentially the same job duties—performing

safety duties pursuant to Defendants’ standards and requirements. Plaintiffs allege that the wage

and hour violations are in large measure borne of CertifiedSafety’s relationship with the refineries

and the standardized policies, practices, and procedures that the refineries impose, creating

pervasive issues of fact and law that are amenable to resolution on a class-wide basis. In particular,

Safety Attendants are subject to the same: hiring and training process; timekeeping, payroll, and

compensation policies; meal and rest period policies and practices; and reimbursement policies.

Plaintiffs’ other derivative claims will rise or fall with the primary claims. Because these questions

can be resolved at the same juncture, Plaintiffs contend the commonality requirement is satisfied

for the Classes.

67. Because Defendants maintain various common policies and practices as to what

work they compensate and what work they do not compensate, and apply these policies and

practices to the Safety Attendants, Plaintiffs contend that there are no individual defenses available

to Defendants.

68. Plaintiffs contend that their claims are typical of those of all other Class Members.

69. They were subject to the alleged illegal policies and practices that form the basis of

the claims asserted in this case. Interviews with Class Members and review of timekeeping and

payroll data confirm that the employees throughout the United States were subjected to the same




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

alleged illegal policies and practices to which Plaintiffs were subjected. Thus, Plaintiffs contend

that the typicality requirement is also satisfied.

70. Plaintiffs’ claims are in line with the claims of the Classes, and Plaintiffs’ claims are

not antagonistic to the claims of Class Members. Plaintiffs have prosecuted this case with the

interests of the Class Members in mind.

71. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience in class action and

employment litigation, including wage and hour class actions, and do not have any conflict with

the Classes.

72. Plaintiffs contend the common questions raised in this action predominate over any

individualized questions concerning the California Class. The Classes are entirely cohesive

because resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims hinge on the uniform policies and practices of Defendants,

rather than the treatment the Class Members experienced on an individual level. As a result,

Plaintiffs contend that the resolution of these alleged class claims would be achieved through the

use of common forms of proof, such as Defendants’ uniform policies, and would not require

inquiries specific to individual Class Members.

73. Further, Plaintiffs contend the class action mechanism is a superior method of

adjudication compared to a multitude of individual suits.

74. Here, the Class Members do not have a strong interest in controlling their individual

claims. The action involves thousands of workers with very similar, but relatively small, claims for

monetary injury. If the Class Members proceeded on their claims as individuals, their many

individual suits would require duplicative discovery and duplicative litigation, and each Class

Member would have to personally participate in the litigation effort to an extent that would never

be required in a class proceeding. Thus, Plaintiffs contend that the class action mechanism would

efficiently resolve numerous substantially identical claims at the same time while avoiding a waste

of judicial resources and eliminating the possibility of conflicting decisions from repetitious

litigation and arbitrations.

75. The issues raised by the present case are much better handled collectively by way of

a settlement.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

76. The Settlement presented by the Parties provides finality, ensures that workers

receive redress for their relatively modest claims, and avoids clogging the legal system with

numerous cases. Accordingly, class treatment is efficient and warranted, and the Court should

conditionally certify the California, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and Alaska Classes for

settlement purposes.

The Proposed Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate

77. The proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under both Rule 23 and the

FLSA approval standards.

78. A review of the Settlement Agreement reveals the fairness, reasonableness, and

adequacy of its terms. The Gross Settlement Amount of $6,000,000, which represents more than

53% of the approximate $11.3 million that Plaintiffs calculated in unpaid wages that would have

been owed to all Class Members if each had been able to prove that he or she worked 1.75 hours

off-the-clock in every workday during the relevant time period. When adding other substantive

claims and potential penalties, the $6,000,000 settlement amount represents approximately 13.3%

of Defendants’ total potential exposure of $45.2 million.

79. Again, these figures are based on Plaintiffs’ assessment of a best-case-scenario. To

have obtained such a result at trial(s), Plaintiffs would have had to prove that each Class Member

worked off-the-clock for 1.75 hours in each workday and that Defendants acted knowingly or in

bad faith. These figures would of course be disputed and hotly contested. The result is well within

the reasonable standard when considering the difficulty and risks presented by pursuing further

litigation.

80. The final settlement amount takes into account the substantial risks inherent in any

class action wage-and hour case, as well as the procedural posture of the Actions and the specific

defenses asserted by Defendants, many of which are unique to this case.

81. In an effort to ensure fairness, the Parties have agreed to allocate the settlement

proceeds amongst Class Members in a manner that recognizes that amount of time that the

particular Class Member worked for Defendants in the applicable limitations period. The

allocation method, which is based on the number of Workweeks, will ensure that longer-tenured




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

workers receive a greater recovery. Moreover, the allocation tracks the differences in substantive

law and penalty claims by weighting the Workweek shares more heavily for work performed in

California and Washington. The allocation was made based on Class Counsel’s assessment to

ensure that employees are compensated accordingly and in the most equitable manner.

82. To the extent that any Class Member is both a FLSA Opt In Plaintiff and a member

of a Rule 23 Class, these workers will only receive a recovery based on their workweeks as a Rule

23 Class Member for their work in California, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and Alaska.

Such workers will not receive a “double recovery.”

83. The Parties engaged in extensive informal discovery, depositions, and class outreach

that have enabled both sides to assess the claims and potential defenses in this action. The Parties

were able to accurately assess the legal and factual issues that would arise if the cases proceeded to

trial(s).

84. In addition, in reaching this Settlement, Plaintiffs’ counsel relied on their substantial

litigation experience in similar wage and hour class and collective actions.

85. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s liability and damages evaluation was premised on a careful and

extensive analysis of the effects of Defendants’ compensation policies and practices on Class

Members’ pay.

86. Ultimately, facilitated by mediator Paul Grossman, the Parties used this information

and discovery to fairly resolve the litigation.

87. The monetary value of the proposed Settlement represents a fair compromise given

the risks and uncertainties posed by continued litigation.

88. If the Actions were to go to trial(s) as class and collective actions (which Defendants

would vigorously oppose if this Settlement Agreement were not approved), Class Counsel

estimates that fees and costs would exceed $5,000,000. Litigating the class and collective action

claims would require substantial additional preparation and discovery. It would require depositions

of experts, the presentation of percipient and expert witnesses at trial, as well as the consideration,

preparation, and presentation of voluminous documentary evidence and the preparation and

analysis of expert reports.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

89. Recovery of the damages and penalties previously referenced would also require

complete success and certification of all of Plaintiffs’ claims, a questionable feat in light of

developments in wage and hour and class and collective action law as well as the legal and factual

grounds that Defendants have asserted to defend this action.

90. Off-the-clock claims are difficult to certify for class treatment, given that the nature,

cause, and amount of the off-the-clock work may vary based on the individualized circumstances

of the worker. While Plaintiffs are confident that they would establish that common policies and

practices give rise to the off-the-clock work for Safety Attendants, Plaintiffs acknowledged that the

work was performed at dozens of different locations around the country, which were operated by

numerous different oil companies. With refinery policies and practices, the physical layout, and the

nature of the work varying by location, Plaintiffs recognized that obtaining class certification

would present a significant obstacle, with the risk that the Safety Attendants could only pursue

individual actions in the event that certification was denied. Certification of off-the-clock work

claims is complicated by the lack of documentary evidence and reliance on employee testimony,

and Plaintiffs would likely face motions for decertification as the case progressed. Given that the

substantive damages are largely driven by the alleged off-the-clock work, and that the derivative

and penalty claims are tethered to off-the-clock claims, Plaintiffs’ counsel was required to

significantly discount the hypothetical value of the claims when assessing the mediator’s proposal

for Settlement.

91. Plaintiffs would encounter difficulties in moving for certification and proving their

claims on the merits in part due to the fact that key Class Member timekeeping documents were

kept in paper format. For example, Class Member timesheets that tracked the services performed

were largely written by hand. Plaintiffs would face fundamental logistical difficulties in reviewing

and analyzing the massive amounts of hard copy records.

92. Moreover, Plaintiffs considered the risk that the Court would, in the end, decline to

find the refinery Defendants liable as a joint employer. Though CertifiedSafety would still be

liable in the event of a favorable outcome for Plaintiffs, a finding that the refinery Defendants are

joint employers would ensure that the Class Members would be able to obtain full recovery,




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

particularly in the event of a large award. Though Plaintiffs have filed pleadings alleging claims of

liability against refinery Defendants on a joint employer basis, the issue would be heavily

contested at summary judgment and/or trial(s). If refinery Defendants are found not to be a joint

employer, the value of the case would be lessened, and Plaintiffs had to consider this risk.

93. In contrast to litigating this suit, resolving this case by means of the Settlement will

yield a prompt, certain, and very substantial recovery for the Class Members. Such a result will

benefit the Parties and the court system. It will bring finality to over two years of arduous litigation

and eight separate Actions, and will foreclose the possibility of expanding litigation.

94. The settlement was a product of non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations. The

Parties participated in two mediations. The second mediation before Paul Grossman, who is a

skilled mediator with many years of experience mediating employment matters, was a lengthy

session that lasted well into the night.

95. The Parties then spent several months negotiating the long form settlement

agreement, with several rounds of meet and confer and correspondence related to the terms and

details of the Settlement.

96. Plaintiffs are represented by experienced and respected litigators of representative

wage and hour actions, and these attorneys feel strongly that the proposed Settlement achieves an

excellent result for the Class Members.

SERVICE AWARDS

97. The enhancement payments of up to $15,000 for Plaintiff Jones, Knight, and

Crummie, up to $10,000 for Plaintiffs Ross and East, and up to $5,000 for Plaintiffs Azevedo and

Turner are intended to compensate Plaintiffs for the critical role they played in this case, and the

time, effort, and risks undertaken in helping secure the result obtained on behalf of the Class

members.

98. Moreover, Plaintiffs have agreed to a general release, unlike other Class Members.

See Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4.21.

99. In agreeing to serve as Class and Collective representatives, Plaintiffs formally

agreed to accept the responsibilities of representing the interests of all Class Members.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

100. Defendants do not oppose the requested payments to the Plaintiffs as reasonable

service awards.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

101. In their fee motion to be submitted with the final approval papers, Plaintiffs’ counsel

will request up to 35% of the Gross Settlement Amount, or $2,100,000, plus reimbursement of

costs up $70,000. Plaintiffs’ counsel will provide the lodestar information for Schneider Wallace

Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP and Lawyers for Justice, PC with their fee motion, and anticipate

that the aggregate lodestar will be approximately on par with the requested fee award. On this

basis, the requested attorneys’ fees award is reasonable.

102. In this case, given the excellent results achieved, the effort expended litigating the

Actions, including the filing of numerous later actions to assert additional Rule 23 claims and joint

employer claims against the refinery Defendants, and the difficulties attendant to litigating this

case, an upward adjustment from the 25% benchmark is warranted. There was no guarantee of

compensation or reimbursement. Rather, counsel undertook all the risks of this litigation on a

completely contingent fee basis. These risks were front and center. Defendants’ vigorous and

skillful defense further confronted Plaintiffs’ counsel with the prospect of recovering nothing or

close to nothing for their commitment to and investment in the case.

103. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs and their counsel committed themselves to developing and

pressing Plaintiffs’ legal claims to enforce the employees’ rights and maximize the class and

collective recovery. During the litigation, counsel had to turn away other less risky cases to remain

sufficiently resourced for this one. The challenges that Class Counsel had to confront and the risks

they had to fully absorb on behalf of the class and collective here are precisely the reasons for

multipliers in contingency fee cases.

104. Attorneys who litigate on a wholly or partially contingent basis expect to receive

significantly higher effective hourly rates in cases where compensation is contingent on success,

particularly in hard-fought cases where, like in the case at bar, the result is uncertain. This does not

result in any windfall or undue bonus. In the legal marketplace, a lawyer who assumes a significant

financial risk on behalf of a client rightfully expects that his or her compensation will be




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

significantly greater than if no risk was involved (i.e., if the client paid the bill on a monthly basis),

and that the greater the risk, the greater the “enhancement.” Adjusting court-awarded fees upward

in contingent fee cases to reflect the risk of recovering no compensation whatsoever for hundreds

of hours of labor simply makes those fee awards consistent with the legal marketplace, and in so

doing, helps to ensure that meritorious cases will be brought to enforce important public interest

policies and that clients who have meritorious claims will be better able to obtain qualified

counsel.

105. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ counsel respectfully submits that a 35% recovery for

fees is appropriate. Plaintiffs’ counsel also requests reimbursement for their litigation costs.

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s efforts resulted in an excellent settlement, and the fee and costs award should

be preliminarily approved as fair and reasonable.

THE NOTICES OF SETTLEMENT AND RELATED ADMINISTRATION

106. The Notices of Settlement, attached as Exhibit A-C to the Settlement Agreement,

and manner of distribution negotiated and agreed upon by the Parties are “the best notice

practicable.”

107. All Class Members have been identified and the Notices of Settlement will be mailed

directly to each Class Member, and emailed to those for whom CertifiedSafety has an email

address. The proposed Notices re clear and straightforward, and provide information on the nature

of the action and the proposed Classes and Collective, the terms and provisions of the Settlement

Agreement, and the monetary awards that the Settlement will provide Class Members.

108. In addition, the Parties will provide a settlement website that provides a generic form

of the Notice, the Settlement Agreement, and other case related documents and contact

information.

109. The proposed Notices fulfill the requirement of neutrality in class notices. They

summarize the proceedings necessary to provide context for the Settlement Agreement and

summarize the terms and conditions of the Settlement, including an explanation of how the

settlement amount will be allocated between the Named Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel, the

Settlement Administrator, and the Class Members, in an informative, coherent and easy-to-




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

understand manner, all in compliance with the Manual for Complex Litigation’s recommendation

that "the notice contain a clear, accurate description of the terms of the settlement."

110. The Class and Class/Collective Notices clearly explain the procedures and deadlines

for requesting exclusion from the Settlement, objecting to the Settlement, the consequences of

taking or foregoing the various options available to Class Members, and the date, time and place of

the Final Approval Hearing. Pursuant to Rule 23(h), the proposed Notices of Settlement also sets

forth the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs sought by Plaintiffs, as well as an explanation of the

procedure by which Class Counsel will apply for them. The Notices of Settlement clearly state that

the Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by Defendants.

111. The Notices makes clear that the final settlement approval decision has yet to be

made.

112. Accordingly, the Notices of Settlement comply with the standards of fairness,

completeness, and neutrality required of a settlement class notice disseminated under authority of

the Court.

113. Furthermore, reasonable steps will be taken to ensure that all Class Members receive

the Notice. Before mailing, CertifiedSafety will provide to the Settlement Administrator a database

that contains the names, last known addresses, last known email addresses (if any), and social

security numbers of each Class Member, along with the applicable number(s) of Workweeks for

calculating the respective settlement shares. The Notices of Settlement will be sent by United

States Mail, and also via email to the maximum extent possible. The Settlement Administrator will

make reasonable efforts to update the contact information in the database using public and private

skip tracing methods. Within 14 days of receipt of the Class List from CertifiedSafety, the

Settlement Administrator will mail the Notices of Settlement to each Class Member.

114. With respect to Class Notices returned as undeliverable, the Settlement

Administrator will re-mail any Notices returned to the Settlement Administrator with a forwarding

address following receipt of the returned mail. If any Notice is returned to the Settlement

Administrator without a forwarding address, the Settlement Administrator will undertake

reasonable efforts to search for the correct address, including skip tracing, and will promptly re-




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

mail the Notice of Settlement to any newly found address.

115. Rule 23 Class Members will have 60 days from the mailing of the Notices of

Settlement to opt-out or object to the Settlement. Any Rule 23 Class Member who does not submit

a timely request to exclude themselves from the Settlement will be deemed a Participating

Individual whose rights and claims are determined by any order the Court enters granting final

approval, and any judgment the Court ultimately enters in the case.10

116. Administration of the Settlement will follow upon the occurrence of the Effective

Date of the Settlement.

117. The Settlement Administrator will provide Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel

with a report of all Settlement payments within 10 business days after the opt out/objection

deadline.

118. Because the proposed Notices of Settlement clearly and concisely describe the terms

of the Settlement and the awards and obligations for Class Members who participate, and because

the Notices will be disseminated in a way calculated to provide notice to as many Class Members

as possible, the Notices of Settlement should be preliminarily approved.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

true and correct. Executed on this 22nd day of November, 2019, in Emeryville, California.

/s/ Carolyn Hunt Cottrell Carolyn Hunt Cottrell

10 However, Rule 23 Class Members who are not Named Plaintiffs or Opt-In Plaintiffs will only release FLSA claims (related to their work in the applicable Rule 23 states) if they endorse or cash their Individual Settlement Payment checks.


carolyn h. cottrell (sbn 166977) david c. leimbach (sbn ... · 1 declaration of carolyn hunt...

Documents