Hayman v. Mastercard, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs filed this class and collective action against Mastercard, Inc. The proposed order states that the parties negotiated a settlement to avoid the uncertainty and burden of continued litigation and to resolve the claims covered by the settlement agreement. The court reviewed the settlement papers, the case record, and arguments presented at a fairness hearing.

Settlement Class

For settlement purposes, the court finally certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3). The Gender Class consists generally of individuals who identify as women, worked for Mastercard in a qualified position in the United States during specified periods, and did not previously sign a separation agreement releasing the gender claims. The Race Class consists generally of individuals who identify as Black or African American and/or Hispanic or Latino/a, worked for Mastercard in a qualified position in the United States during specified periods, and did not previously sign a separation agreement releasing the race claims. The relevant starting dates vary by state and are listed in the order.

The court found that the class was sufficiently numerous, had common legal or factual questions, had typical claims, was adequately represented, was ascertainable, and was appropriate for settlement. Deborah Hayman, G.A. Gomes, L. Kasomo, and S. Brown were confirmed as class representatives solely for settlement purposes. Outten & Golden LLP was confirmed as class counsel solely for settlement purposes.

Court’s Findings and Approval

The court found that the settlement was procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate and was not the product of collusion. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case, the settlement’s monetary recovery and distribution method, the complexity and expense of further litigation, class-member support, counsel’s views, mediation and arm’s-length negotiations, and the discovery conducted.

The court found that the notice provided was the best practicable notice under the circumstances and satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and constitutional due process. Under the settlement’s release provisions, participating class members who do not timely and validly opt out release the specified released claims. The released gender claims concern sex, including pregnancy, or gender discrimination relating to compensation, promotion, or assignment of levels. The released race claims concern race or ethnicity discrimination relating to those same matters. The order states that the releases do not include hostile-work-environment or harassment claims, failure-to-accommodate claims, leave claims, unlawful-termination claims, retaliation claims, or discrimination claims based on other protected characteristics.

Awards, Fees, and Implementation

Judge Clarke approved service awards of $25,000 each for the four class representatives. The court awarded class counsel $8,666,666.66 in fees and costs, to be paid from the gross settlement amount. The court also approved Rust Consulting Group, Inc. as settlement administrator and approved its $65,000 fee.

Within 14 days after final approval, Mastercard must deposit $26 million into the qualified settlement fund. Within 14 calendar days after that deposit, the settlement administrator must recalculate participating class members’ payments and mail settlement checks. The administrator must send reminders within 60 calendar days after the initial distribution, and checks must be cashed by the applicable 90-day deadline described in the order.

Disposition

Upon fulfillment of all settlement terms, the entire litigation will be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees except as provided in the settlement agreement and order. Participating class members who did not opt out, participating collective members who deposit a settlement check, and the plaintiffs are permanently enjoined from asserting, pursuing, or seeking to reopen claims released by the settlement. The court retained jurisdiction over interpreting and implementing the settlement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.