Taylor v. The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University
- Jeffrey White
- 4:18-cv-05248
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
In Taylor v. Stanford, Judge White approved a wage-case settlement, partly approved related awards, and entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.
The named plaintiffs, the 48 participating class members, the 28 collective-action members, the one person who opted out, Stanford, class counsel, the settlement administrator, and the parties and persons covered by the settlement’s released claims.
What happened
In Taylor v. The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, employees brought class and collective claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law. The parties reached a settlement covering specified Stanford Department of Public Safety employees and investigators.
The court found that notice was adequate, no one objected, and one person opted out. It approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the participating employees’ best interests. The settlement required Stanford to pay $275,800, with payments distributed to collective-action and class members.
Judge White granted final settlement approval and granted in part the request for fees, costs, claim-administration expenses, and incentive awards. He approved $79,000 in attorneys’ fees, $8,229.64 in costs, $1,000 for administration, and $1 each for three named plaintiffs; the court dismissed the action with prejudice and entered judgment.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University · No. 4:18-cv-05248
- Jeffrey White
- Apr. 18, 2022
Background
Jeffrey Taylor, Crystal Townley, and Sean Zirkle filed class and collective claims against The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the California Labor Code. The claims concerned alleged wage-and-hour violations involving employees of Stanford’s Department of Public Safety. The opinion identifies disputes about overtime calculations, offsets and credits, liquidated damages, the statute of limitations for state-law claims, penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, and meal and rest periods.
The parties reached a conditional settlement. The court had preliminarily approved a California class covering specified community service officers, deputy sheriffs, and sergeants employed during the stated class period, as well as an Investigator Subclass. It also preliminarily approved an FLSA collective action covering specified employees who submitted consent forms. Notice was mailed to 49 settlement class members. Two notices were initially returned, but updated addresses were found and all notices were ultimately delivered. One person requested exclusion, no one objected, and 48 claimants participated.
Settlement Approval
The court had federal-question jurisdiction over the FLSA claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. For settlement purposes, it certified the California class and Investigator Subclass under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and approved the FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
The court found that the notice process provided the best practicable notice under the circumstances. It also concluded that the settlement resulted from serious, non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations and that the class representatives and counsel adequately represented the class. The court determined that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 and that it fairly resolved bona fide disputes under the FLSA.
The settlement required a total payment of $275,800. The opinion states that 28 collective-action members would receive $84,237.55, while 48 participating class members would receive pro rata shares of the remaining amount. The collective-action members would receive approximately 100 percent of their calculated FLSA damages based on the salary methodology. The court noted that the settlement was a compromise and did not result from a trial finding of liability.
Fees, Costs, Administration, and Incentive Awards
The court approved $79,000 in attorneys’ fees. The requested amount represented 28.3 percent of the settlement fund, and the court found it reasonable based on counsel’s work, the contingent nature of the case, and the results achieved. A lodestar cross-check—comparing the award with the hours and hourly rates reasonably used—also supported the award.
The court granted in part the request for costs. It approved $8,229.64 rather than the requested $10,000 and directed that the remaining $1,770.36 be added to the class fund. The court granted the request to pay $1,000 from the common settlement fund to ILYM for settlement-administration services. It also granted $1 incentive awards to each of Taylor, Townley, and Zirkle.
Disposition
The court granted the motion for final approval and granted in part the motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards. It directed the parties and settlement administrator to carry out the settlement, permanently barred the named plaintiffs and participating settlement members from pursuing the released claims covered by the agreement, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, entered judgment, and directed the clerk to close the file.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.