Bankwitz v. Ecolab, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:17-cv-02924
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Bankwitz v. Ecolab, Judge Chen ordered supplemental briefing and evidence before deciding whether to preliminarily approve a proposed wage-and-hour class settlement.
The plaintiffs, Ecolab, and the proposed class members whose wage-and-hour claims would be covered by the settlement.
What happened
In Bankwitz v. Ecolab, Inc., the court reviewed the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement involving wage-and-hour claims and ordered the parties to provide more briefing or evidence before the court decides that request.
The court requested information about a related global settlement, the proposed class definition, released claims, damages calculations, litigation risks, comparable settlements, the named plaintiffs’ suitability as class representatives, attorneys’ fees, incentive awards, notice, opt-outs, objections, claim disputes, and unclaimed settlement funds. The parties were ordered to file the additional material by December 17, 2020, with a joint filing strongly preferred.
Judge Chen did not grant or deny preliminary approval in this order. Instead, Judge Edward Chen ordered supplemental briefing and/or evidence and directed the parties to address specific concerns about the proposed settlement and notice.
The detailed version
- Bankwitz v. Ecolab, Inc. · No. 3:17-cv-02924
- Edward Chen
- Dec. 9, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs asked the court to preliminarily approve a proposed settlement of wage-and-hour claims against Ecolab, Inc. The court reviewed that request and concluded that additional briefing and/or evidence was needed. The court strongly preferred a joint filing, but allowed the parties to provide separate positions if they disagreed. The supplemental material was due December 17, 2020.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court directed the parties to explain the nature of a referenced Confidential Global Settlement Agreement and to give specific reasons if they sought to file that explanation under seal.
The court also asked whether Ecolab’s Territory Sales Representative position replaced the Territory Manager position or involved substantially the same work. It requested explanations of several exceptions in the proposed class definition, including exceptions involving pending arbitration complaints, individuals represented by plaintiffs’ counsel who had not filed arbitration complaints, and certain employees hired as Territory Sales Representatives after January 5, 2020. The court directed the plaintiffs and/or their counsel to address possible conflicts of interest related to those exceptions.
The court found that the proposed releases of non-PAGA claims and PAGA claims appeared potentially overbroad because they were not clearly tied to the factual allegations in the operative complaint. PAGA refers to California’s Private Attorneys General Act. The court directed the parties to meet and confer and propose more specific release language.
Damages and Litigation Risks
The court requested additional explanations concerning the damages calculations and litigation risks for several claims. These included overtime and double-time wages, minimum wages, rest periods, PAGA civil penalties, reporting-time violations, meal periods, and split-shift premiums. Among other things, the court sought clearer explanations of the plaintiffs’ liability theories, maximum-damages calculations, disputed overtime rates, possible liquidated damages, possible double compensation, penalty-stacking risks, and the relationship between reporting-time and overtime claims.
Settlement Comparisons and Representation
The court asked plaintiffs’ counsel to explain whether the proposed settlement provided a more favorable recovery than a comparable earlier settlement involving Ecolab and, if so, why. The parties were also asked to identify other comparable cases and explain how the proposed non-PAGA recovery compared with amounts obtained through arbitration or other settlements involving Ecolab.
The court questioned whether Bankwitz and Jacobo were appropriate class representatives for the non-PAGA claims if their individual arbitrations had addressed all of those claims. It also asked the plaintiffs to clarify whether the requested attorneys’ fees included work performed in the individual arbitrations and to estimate the hours spent on major litigation tasks. The plaintiffs were directed to explain why the proposed $50,000 in incentive awards—$25,000 for each named plaintiff—was appropriate.
Notice and Settlement Administration
The court asked whether class notice should use additional methods, such as email or social media, and why the settlement agreement restricted posting the notice on websites. It asked whether class members should receive more time to opt out or object, whether electronic submissions should be permitted, and whether there was a process to dispute the number of credited workweeks.
The court also asked whether the parties had considered a different recipient for unclaimed funds instead of the California State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund. Regarding the proposed notice, the court directed that the estimated average payouts for both PAGA and non-PAGA claims be prominently stated, with an explanation that actual payments would depend on workweeks and other factors. It also requested revisions clarifying the choices available to class members, including that a class member who objects remains in the settlement and will receive the settlement payment if the court rejects the objection.
Disposition
The court did not decide the motion for preliminary approval in this order. It ordered supplemental briefing and/or evidence addressing the listed issues. The order ends with “IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.