Villar v. AHRC Home Care Services, Inc.

Background

Francisco Villar brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. He alleged that the defendants used time-shaving practices that resulted in unpaid regular and overtime compensation. He also alleged violations involving wage statements and wage notices. Villar sought unpaid wages, additional damages, penalties, an injunction, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants disputed the allegations and denied liability.

The parties negotiated a revised settlement after mediation. The court had previously denied preliminary approval without prejudice and later received additional submissions and held a conference. The parties then submitted an addendum addressing the court’s earlier concerns about compliance with the FLSA and the settlement-review requirements described in the opinion.

Settlement Class and Collective Action

For settlement purposes only, the proposed class consisted of Villar and individuals who worked for the defendants in New York City as direct-care staff with the job titles Residential Habilitation Counselor, Home Health Aide, or Personal Care Aide from October 5, 2012, through September 11, 2019.

The court conditionally certified the group as an FLSA collective action because it found the members similarly situated for purposes of evaluating whether the settlement was fair. The court authorized mailing notice to potential collective-action members, including information about the FLSA claim and their ability to join the lawsuit.

The court also found, exclusively for settlement purposes, that the proposed class met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). It certified the class for settlement, notice, and distribution of settlement payments only. If the settlement did not receive final approval, was overturned on appeal, or otherwise failed to take effect, the certification would be dissolved, and the parties would retain their litigation positions and rights concerning class certification and the merits.

Preliminary Settlement Approval

The court found that the settlement fell within the possible range for approval and that notice to the class was appropriate. It also found that the settlement was negotiated at arm’s length rather than collusively, and that class counsel understood the strengths and weaknesses of the claims. The proposed allocation plan was rationally related to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the claims and was also within the possible range for approval.

The court therefore granted preliminary approval to the settlement agreement and the plan of allocation. It did not grant final approval. The court approved the form and method of distributing the class notice, required the claims administrator to prepare and mail the notice, and directed the defendants to provide the information needed for that mailing.

Representatives and Further Proceedings

The court appointed Villar as the class representative under Rule 23 and the FLSA, appointed C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC as class counsel, and appointed Advanced Litigation Strategies, LLC as claims administrator.

The order established procedures for class members to opt out or object, and for the plaintiff to seek judgment and final approval. A fairness hearing was scheduled, but the hearing date and time are blank or illegible in the provided text. If final approval is granted, class members who do not timely opt out will be subject to the release described in the settlement agreement and will qualify for payment under the plan.

Ruling

Judge Ona T. Wang approved the parties’ preliminary settlement, conditionally certified the FLSA collective action, certified the Rule 23 settlement class for limited settlement purposes, approved the notice process, and directed the parties to submit a joint status letter within 30 days, by December 7, 2020. The opinion does not state a settlement amount or report a final judgment closing the case.