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 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Lee R. Feldman, Esq. (SBN 171628) [email protected]Alicia Olivares (SBN 181412) [email protected]FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES A Professional Corporation 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-8500 Fax: (310) 207-8515 David M. deRubertis, Esq. (SBN 208709) [email protected]The deRubertis Law Firm, APC 4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue Studio City, California 91604 Telephone: (818) 761-2322 Facsimile: (818) 761-2323 Attorneys for Plaintiffs DANESSA VALENTINE and JALISA MOORE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL CIVIL WEST DANESSA VALENTINE, an individual; JALISA MOORE, an individual; and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. BC602184 [Case Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl, Department 12] MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT DATE: February 13, 2020 TIME: 10:00 a.m. DEPT: 12 Action Filed: November 24, 2015 Trial Date: NONE (Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion; Supporting Declarations of Alicia Olivares; Lee R. Feldman and David deRubertis; Declarations of Jarrod Salinas, Danessa Valentine; and Jalisa Moore; [Proposed] Order; Proof of Service) E-Served: Jan 21 2020 9:18AM PST Via Case Anywhere
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
30
31
32
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Lee R. Feldman, Esq. (SBN 171628) [email protected] Alicia Olivares (SBN 181412) [email protected] FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES A Professional Corporation 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-8500 Fax: (310) 207-8515 David M. deRubertis, Esq. (SBN 208709) [email protected] The deRubertis Law Firm, APC 4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue Studio City, California 91604 Telephone: (818) 761-2322 Facsimile: (818) 761-2323 Attorneys for Plaintiffs DANESSA VALENTINE and JALISA MOORE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL CIVIL WEST
DANESSA VALENTINE, an individual; JALISA MOORE, an individual; and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs,
vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. BC602184 [Case Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl, Department 12] MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT DATE: February 13, 2020 TIME: 10:00 a.m. DEPT: 12 Action Filed: November 24, 2015 Trial Date: NONE (Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion; Supporting Declarations of Alicia Olivares; Lee R. Feldman and David deRubertis; Declarations of Jarrod Salinas, Danessa Valentine; and Jalisa Moore; [Proposed] Order; Proof of Service)
E-Served: Jan 21 2020 9:18AM PST Via Case Anywhere
Clark v. American Residential Services, LLC., (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th ............................................................................................................. 15
Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. 48, (1996) Cal.App.4th 1800 ........................................................................................... 12, 13, 14, 17
Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University, (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359 ........................................................................................................ 19
In re Microsoft I-V Cases, (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 706, fn. 14 ............................................................................................ 12
Ketchum v. Moses, (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122 ................................................................................................................ 19
Serrano v. Priest, (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25 (1977) .................................................................................................. 18, 19
State v. Levi Strauss & Co., (1986) 41 Cal. 3d 460 .................................................................................................................. 13
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Federal Cases Pages
D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, (2d Cir. 2001) 236 F.3d 78 .......................................................................................................... 14
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corporation, (9th Cir. 1988) 150 F.3d 1011 ..................................................................................................... 14
Nat 'l Rural Tele. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2004) 221 F.R.D. 523 ................................................................................................ 17
Code of Civil Procedure § 384 .......................................................................................................... 11
Government Code § 3500 ................................................................................................................... 9
Government Code § 12940(a) ................................................................................................... 6, 7, 22
Government Code § 12940(e) ............................................................................................................. 4
Government Code § 12945 ............................................................................................................... 22
State Rules Pages California Rules of Court, Rule 3.766 ............................................................................................... 18
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769 ............................................................................................... 12
Other Authorities Pages In re Janney Montgomery Scott LLC Financial Consultant Litig., Case No. 06-3202,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60790 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2009) ............................................................. 20
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
In this action, Plaintiffs allege that the County of Los Angeles violated the rights of
thousands of applicants and current employees by requiring them, as a condition of employment, to
submit to medical examinations and answer invasive medical and psychological questions on
comprehensive medical questionnaires that sought medical information that was not sufficiently
narrowly tailored to assess the employee’s ability to carry out the essential functions of each class
member’s job safely or effectively. On August 22, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of
a $6,390,000 class action settlement reached on behalf of 21,300 current and former employees and
post-offer job applicants of the County of Los Angeles who, during the class period, were required
to respond to the County’s pre-employment medical history questionnaires challenged in the
lawsuit (the “Unlawful Inquiry Class”). On October 10, 2019, the Court approved an Amendment
to the Settlement Agreement, which increased the settlement amount to $7,137,900, negotiated by
Class Counsel to cover the increased settlement class of 23,793 individuals. During the notice
period, 202 duplicate names were discovered, resulting in a final class size of 23,591.
In accord with the Court’s Order granting preliminary approval, notice to the Class
commenced on November 4, 2019. Class Members were given 45 days to submit objections or opt
out of the settlement. Nothing has occurred since preliminary approval to undermine the validity
of the Court’s previous finding that the settlement appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.
Quite the contrary, to date, no class member has objected to, or otherwise challenged the
settlement. Out of 23,591 class members, only 12 class members submitted a valid opt out form -
0.05% of the entire class.
This settlement is remarkable in that, while compensating each of the participating Class
Members approximately $196.85 for the privacy/informational intrusion in having to respond to
the offending questionnaire, this settlement also preserves the claims of those who actually
suffered an adverse employment action (“Adverse Employment Action” and “Pregnancy
Adverse Action” subclasses, including the two plaintiffs) so that they may still pursue their
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
30
31
32
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
individual claims, if any. In addition to the monetary benefits, the Settlement includes meaningful
and substantial injunctive relief, which requires the County to take prompt and reasonable efforts
to repeal Los Angeles County Civil Service Rule 9 (“Rule 9”) and replace it with language that is
consistent with its obligations under the FEHA. The County expressly agreed that the claims
asserted in Plaintiffs’ operative Complaint, and this Court’s tentative ruling to partially certify an
injunctive relief class in this case, were the primary catalyst motivating the County to agree to the
injunctive relief.
The Settlement is the product of extensive arms-length negotiations between the parties and
their experienced and informed counsel, and is fair, reasonable, and adequate given the claims, the
alleged harm, and the parties' respective litigation risks. By this motion, the parties respectfully
request that the Court conduct a final review of the Settlement, and approve the Settlement as fair,
reasonable and adequate. In addition, Class Counsel respectfully request that the Court award a
Service Award of $5,000 to the each of the two named Plaintiffs, whose willingness to represent
the Class and active participation in the Action helped make the Settlement possible.
II. SUMMARY OF LITIGATION
A. Overview of the Litigation
In their operative complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the County systematically violated the
rights of its post-offer applicants through a preplacement medical examination process at the hiring
stage and violated the laws against prohibited inquiries and medical examinations. Plaintiffs further
allege that the County used non job-related information collected during post-offer medical
examinations to discriminate against applicants with medical conditions and disabilities and to
deny them employment rather than reasonably accommodate them. Plaintiffs contend that the
County took adverse employment action against applicants because of their disclosures of non-job
related, confidential medical conditions or information during the hiring process. (Declaration of
Alicia Olivares (“Olivares Dec.”) ¶¶ 9-10).
In addition to nominal damages for the unlawful privacy intrusion, Plaintiffs sought
injunctive and declaratory relief, including a declaratory judgment that parts of Rule 9 violates the
FEHA, and an injunction against the County enjoining it from engaging in each of the alleged
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
30
31
32
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
unlawful practices, including an injunction prohibiting the County from requiring applicants for
County employment from having to answer medical questions or provide information about
medical conditions unless the County has specifically determined that the inquiry is job related and
consistent with business necessity as defined by the FEHA. (Olivares Dec. ¶ 10).
The County denies Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations. The County argued that it has not
followed the text of Rule 9.01 and 9.03 in practice since at least 2006. The County contends that
the County routinely complies with its policies by hiring applicants who have filled out a medical
history questionnaire, even if they have disclosed a medical condition. (Olivares Dec. ¶ 11).
Further, the County argued that none of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs are subject to class
certification because Plaintiffs cannot establish the requisite commonality and ascertainability.
For example, the County argued that in order to demonstrate that the questions on the medical
history questionnaires at issue in this lawsuit are unlawful, i.e., not "job related" or "consistent with
business necessity," the Court would necessarily have to examine each question on the applicable
questionnaire against the job functions of the particular position. Given that there are
approximately 1,200 different job classifications during the relevant time period that are subject to
a post-conditional offer medical examination, and given that there are between 66 and 139 different
medial questions on the various medical history questionnaires used, the Court would have to
conduct 148,859 separate analyses to determine whether a particular question is "job related" and
"consistent with business necessity" or not. Moreover, because most of the causes of action
Plaintiffs' are seeking to pursue on a class basis require a legally cognizable "adverse employment
action," an individualized inquiry and analysis will be required to see if an essential element of the
claim can be established. For all these reasons, the County argued that class certification was
improper. Id.
B. The Parties Settled At Mediation After Exhaustive Discovery Was Conducted
The Parties conducted extensive discovery and a thorough examination and investigation of
the facts and law relating to the claims and defenses asserted by the Parties in this Action. Plaintiffs
took five key depositions of County witnesses and the Persons Most Qualified to testify regarding
the implementation and application of Rule 9, the job classifications affected by Rule 9, the factors
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
30
31
32
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
considered by the County in determining what medical and psychological standards to set for all
job classifications and what inquiries to require, the manner in which any and all pre-placement
medical questionnaires were utilized, the number of post-offer applicants involved, the number of
post-offer applicants who suffered any adverse employment action, and the County’s policies
applicable to all the issues raised in the Operative Complaint. Plaintiffs also reviewed and analyzed
over 25,000 pages of documents, including the County’s Medical Standards for Employment,
policy and enforcement procedures relating to medical examination results for preplacement
examinations, medical history questionnaires, Pre-Placement Protocol Sheets, Pre-
Placement Clinical Practice Guidelines, and guidelines relating to the purpose of performing
preplacement evaluations on applicants for various job classifications, proposed revisions to Rule
9, and job classification charts. (Olivares Decl. ¶¶ 12-14)
In addition, the County took the depositions of both named Plaintiffs. The parties have also
exchanged extensive and exhaustive written discovery, including multiple sets of interrogatories,
requests for production of documents, and requests for admission. In preparation for the Motion for
Class Certification, the Plaintiffs retained the services of a highly qualified forensic economist and
statistician, David C. Sharp, Ph.D., to ensure satisfaction with the Duran concerns and compliance
with sound statistical science. (Olivares Decl. ¶¶14-15).
On July 31, 2018, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification was heard. The Court issued a
tentative ruling and requested supplemental briefing before issuing a final ruling on Plaintiffs’
Motion. The Court’s tentative ruling indicated the Court’s view that “common issues of fact
underlie the issue of whether Defendant County of Los Angeles has a general policy that violates
FEHA, Government Code section 12940(e).” The Court’s tentative ruling also expressed concern
as to whether the “Adverse Employment Action” Class and the “Pregnancy Adverse Action” Sub-
Class (which apply to the third, sixth, seventh and tenth causes of action) could be certified on a
class basis. (Olivares Decl. ¶¶16-20).
Subsequent to the Court’s tentative ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, on
or about August 28, 2018, the County entered into a Settlement Agreement with the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) (“DFEH Settlement”) to resolve two
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
30
31
32
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
lawsuits brought against the County by the DFEH: DFEH v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles
County Superior Court Case No. BC658050 (“DFEH Godoy action”), and DFEH v. County of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC663789 (“DFEH Ficarella action”).
Pursuant to the DFEH Settlement, the County agreed to injunctive relief that was the same or
substantially similar in nature to the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs in their Complaint,
including but not limited to, the County’s agreement with DFEH to take prompt and reasonable
efforts to repeal Los Angeles County Civil Service Rule 9 and replace it with language that is
consistent with the County’s obligations under the FEHA. Both the DFEH Godoy action and the
DFEH Ficarella action were filed after Plaintiffs initiated this Action. The County expressly
agreed in this Settlement that the claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ operative Complaint, and this
Court’s tentative ruling to partially certify an injunctive relief class in this case, were the
primary catalyst motivating the County to agree to similar injunctive relief in the settlement
with the DFEH. (Settlement Agreement, Section II, D(6)) (Olivares Dec. ¶21)
On January 10, 2019, the Parties participated in private mediation before a reputable and
respected JAMS mediator experienced in class actions. The Parties engaged in good faith, arm’s-
length negotiations during the mediation. At and after mediation, the Parties reached a
comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) regarding the settlement of what the
Parties agree are the only likely viable class claims relating to the Unlawful Inquiry Class
Members. (Olivares Dec. ¶22) After many months of further negotiations, the parties ultimately
memorialized the terms of the settlement in “Settlement Agreement re Class Claims,” which is
attached as Exhibit 1. The MOU is attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A.
C. Preliminary Approval
On August 22, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement. (Olivares
Decl. ¶ 23, Exhibit 2). During the process of compiling the Database of all Class Members,
however, the County discovered there were a total of 2,493 additional class members. Given the
significant increase in additional class members, Class Counsel negotiated for the payment of an
additional $747,900 to be added to the Settlement Fund, increasing the settlement fund from
$6,390,000 to $7,137,900. (Olivares Dec. ¶24)
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
30
31
32
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
This guaranteed that the existing settlement pool was not diluted and that the additional
costs and attorney’s fees were covered. Accordingly, the parties subsequently negotiated and
drafted an Amendment to the Settlement Agreement, which the Court approved on October 10,
2019. (Olivares Decl. ¶24, Exhibit 3). The County of Los Angeles next requested a modification
of the already approved Notice to the Class to modify the class period from April 1, 2014 to
October 14, 2018 (if applying to any County Department with the exception of the Department of
Health Services) or to September 20, 2019 (if applying to the Department of Health Services).
(Olivares Decl. ¶25). The change to the existing class period (“April 1, 2014 to the present”) was
needed because the County represented to the Court that it had already stopped using the medical
questionnaires that were the subject of the litigation as of October 14, 2018 for all departments
with the exception of the Department of Health Services, and as of September 20, 2019 for the
Department of Health Services. (Olivares Decl. ¶25). On October 29, 2019, the court approved the
revised language, but ordered that the Final Approval Order must specify that the claims released
are only those within the revised date limitation. (Olivares Decl. ¶25, Exhibit 4).
III. EVALUATION OF THE SETTLEMENT
A. Nature of Claims and Relief Sought
Plaintiffs allege the following claims in the Corrected Second Amended Complaint
(“CSAC”): (1) Unlawful Medical Inquiry in Violation of FEHA (asserted by the entire “California
Class,”); (2) Violation of Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (asserted by the entire
“California Class,”); (3) Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code, section 12940(a) (asserted by
the “Adverse Employment Action Class” and the “Pregnancy Adverse Action Sub-Class” only; (4)
Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (asserted by Valentine and Moore individually only
and not on a class basis); (5) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA
(asserted by Valentine and Moore individually only and not on a class basis); (6) California Family
Rights Act (“CFRA”) Interference (asserted by the “Adverse Employment Action Class” only, as
defined in the Complaint); (7) Pregnancy Disability Leave (“PDL”) Interference (asserted by the
“Pregnancy Adverse Action” Sub-Class, as defined in the Complaint); (8) Failure to Accommodate
in Violation of Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”) (asserted by Moore individually only
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
30
31
32
7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
and not on a class basis); (9) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of PDLL
(asserted by Moore individually only and not on a class basis); and (10) Sex/Pregnancy
Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code, section 12940(a) (asserted by the “Pregnancy Adverse
Employment Action” Sub-Class only).
On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief,
including a declaratory judgment that parts of Los Angeles County Civil Service Rule 9 violated
the FEHA, and an injunction against the County enjoining it from engaging in each of the alleged
unlawful practices, policies and patterns set forth in the Complaint, including an injunction
prohibiting the County from requiring applicants for County employment from having to answer
medical questions or provide information about medical conditions unless the County has
specifically determined that the inquiry is job related and consistent with business necessity as
defined under the FEHA and its implementing regulations. In addition, Plaintiffs sought
compensatory damages, civil penalties and administrative fines, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
Plaintiff sought to certify the following Class and/or Sub Classes:
“Unlawful Inquiry Class”: “All employees and post-offer job applicants
who, during the class period, were required to undergo preplacement medical
entrance examinations that utilized the County’s Occupational Health Program’s
(“OHP”) “Basic” or “General” “Pre-Placement Medical History Questionnaire”
and/or the medical history questionnaire(s) used for pre-placement medical entrance
examinations for classifications in the County’s Department of Health Services’
(“DHS”).
“Adverse Employment Action” Class: All applicants who were required to
complete the medical history questionnaires identified above and who suffered an
adverse employment action, including but not limited to, having a job offer revoked,
having their position terminated and/or suffering a delay in hire as a result of
medical or psychological information disclosed or revealed as part of the
aforementioned pre-placement medical examination process.
“Pregnancy Adverse Action” Sub-Class: Applicants who were required to
complete the medical history questionnaires identified above and who suffered an
adverse employment action due to their disclosure of a pregnancy, including but not
limited to, applicants whose job offers were revoked, whose positions were
terminated or who suffered a delay in hire as a result of the disclosure of pregnancy,
being pregnant or anticipation of becoming pregnant.
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
30
31
32
8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
B. Composition of Settlement Class
The Settlement resolves only the claims asserted on behalf of the “Unlawful Inquiry
Class,” as defined above. According to County records, the “Unlawful Inquiry Class” consists of
23,591 individuals, i.e., 23,591 individuals were requested to complete the aforementioned medical
history questionnaires between April 1, 2014 and October 14, 2018 (if applying to any County
Department with the exception of the Department of Health Services) and September 20, 2019 (if
applying to the Department of Health Services). (Settlement Agreement, Section II, D(2)(2.1) and
Section J(5); Olivares Dec. ¶32).
The Settlement does not settle or release the claims asserted on behalf of the “Adverse
Employment Action” Class and the “Pregnancy Adverse Action.” Members of the “Adverse
Employment Action” Class and the “Pregnancy Adverse Action” Class (including Plaintiffs
Danessa Valentine and Jalisa Moore) will retain the right to individually pursue any claim asserted
in the CSAC on their behalf. (Settlement Agreement, Section II, J(5) and Section II, E(2)); Olivares
Dec. ¶32).The class members were given notice that Class Counsel will no longer be pursuing
those claims on a class basis in light of the Court’s expressed skepticism, at the July 31, 2018
hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, about the ability to certify those claims. Class
Members were also given notice that the statute of limitations on individual claims asserted on
behalf of the “Adverse Employment Action” Class and the “Pregnancy Adverse Action” Class
have been tolled during the pendency of this lawsuit, through the date of final approval of the
settlement. (Settlement Agreement, Section II, E(2))
C. Benefits to the Unlawful Inquiry Class
Monetary Relief: The County shall pay a maximum settlement amount of Seven Million,
One Hundred, Thirty-Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred Dollars ($7,137,900.00) ("Maximum
Settlement Amount") to resolve the claims made by the “Unlawful Inquiry Class” Members. The
potential recovery for each Class Member is calculated after subtracting approved Attorney’s Fees
and costs, Settlement Administration costs, and the Service Payments to the Named Plaintiffs.
After these costs are deducted, the Settlement Pool is estimated to be approximately Four Million,
Six Hundred, Forty-One Thousand, Six Hundred Forty-Three Dollars ($4,641,643).
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
30
31
32
9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
County records, the “Unlawful Inquiry Class” consists of 23,591 individuals, i.e., 23,591
individuals were requested to complete the aforementioned medical history questionnaires during
the Class Period. Each Participating Class Member was estimated to receive a payment of
approximately $195. Class Members were not required to submit a claim form. (Settlement
Agreement, Section II, D(2); Olivares Dec. ¶34)
Injunctive Relief: The County agreed to take prompt and reasonable efforts to repeal Los
Angeles County Civil Service Rule 9 and replace it with language that is consistent with its
obligations under the FEHA, provided that such language is in accord with the DFEH Settlement.
The County agrees that the revisions or re-write will eliminate the concepts that employees are
“expected to remain in a state of good health for a reasonable period of service, consistent with the
economics of retirement, sick leave, and other employee benefit programs.” Any language change
regarding Rule 9 is subject to collective bargaining with County employee associations pursuant to
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, Government Code section 3500, et seq., the employee relations
ordinance of the county of Los Angeles, and any collective bargaining process and employee
association demands that must be complied with as well. (Settlement Agreement, Section II, D(3)-
(5); Olivares Dec. ¶34)
D. Release by the Settlement Class
Upon this Settlement becoming final, the County and the Released Persons will be released
from any claim that Plaintiffs or Settlement Class Members ever had against the Released Persons
arising from or in any way whatsoever relating to actions or omissions which have been asserted or
which could reasonably have been asserted only on behalf of the Unlawful Inquiry Class.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the release does not settle or release the claims asserted on behalf
of the “Adverse Employment Action” Class and the “Pregnancy Adverse Action.” Specifically, the
release language states:
In addition to the effect of any final judgment entered in accordance with
this Settlement Agreement, upon this Settlement becoming final, the County and the
Released Persons will be released and forever discharged from any and all actions,
claims, demands, rights, suits, and causes of action of any kind or nature whatsoever
against the County and the Released Persons, including damages, costs, expenses,
penalties, and attorneys' fees, whether at law or equity, known or unknown, foreseen
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
30
31
32
10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
or unforeseen, developed or undeveloped, direct, indirect or consequential,
liquidated or unliquidated, arising under common law, regulatory law, statutory law,
or otherwise, based on federal, state, or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
code, contract, common law, or any other source, or any claim that Plaintiffs or
Settlement Class Members ever had, now have, may have, or hereafter can, shall or
may ever have against the Released Persons in any court, tribunal, arbitration panel,
commission, agency or before any governmental and/or administrative body, or any
other adjudicatory body, on the basis of, connected with, arising from or in any way
whatsoever relating to actions or omissions which have been asserted or which
could reasonably have been asserted by the Settlement Class Members on behalf of
the ''Unlawful Inquiry Class" against the County in this Action (and in Plaintiffs'
Motion for Certification in the event there are different or additional claims asserted
therein). This release is limited to claims that arose or could have been asserted as of
the date of final approval of the Settlement Agreement. (Settlement Agreement,
Section II, J(1)).
“Released Persons” means and includes the County and its past and present employees and
elected officials, departments, agents, insurers, spokespersons, legal representatives, attorneys,
public relations firms, and assigns of all such persons or entities. (Settlement Agreement §IIA(10)).
The Settlement Agreement makes clear that:
“This Release does not apply to claims of the Adverse Employment Action Class
and/or the Pregnancy Adverse Employment Action Class for the conduct alleged on
their behalf, which are not part of this settlement. Participation in the settlement of
the Unlawful Inquiry Class does not settle, release, waive and/or compromise the
claims of the Adverse Employment Action Class Members and/or the Pregnancy
Adverse Action Class Members.” (Settlement Agreement, Section II, J(5)).
E. The Notice and Settlement Administration Processes Were Completed
Pursuant to The Court’s Order
The Parties retained Simpluris Class Action Settlement Administration (“Simpluris”)1 to
provide the settlement administration services agreed to in the Settlement Agreement. Simpluris’
duties included: printing and mailing the Class Notice; receiving undeliverable Class Notices;
posting an informational website; receiving and validating requests for exclusion; answering
questions from Class Members; computing, processing, reviewing, and paying the Settlement
Payments; preparing any tax returns and other filings required by any governmental taxing
1 At preliminary approval the Court appointed ILYM Group as the Settlement Administrator, but after ILYM raised its original quote dramatically, the Parties agreed to and the Court approved Simpluris.
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
30
31
32
11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
authority or agency; and preparing any other notices, reports of filings to be prepared in the course
of administering the Settlement Payments. (Olivares Dec. ¶26; Jarrod Salinas (“Salinas”) Dec. ¶3)
The County of Los Angeles compiled and provided Simpluris with the Class List. The
Class List contained a total of 23,793 names, 23,591 of which were unique Class Members and 202
were duplicate names. (Salinas Dec. ¶5). Pursuant to the schedule approved by the Court, Simpluris
mailed via First Class Mail the Notice Packets to all 23,591 Class Members, after updating the
mailing addresses through the National Change of Address Database. (Salinas Dec. ¶¶6-7). Of the
1,108 Notice Packets that were returned as undeliverable, Simpluris conducted a skip trace by
using a reputable search tool owned by Lexis-Nexis, using the Class Members’ name, previous
address and Social Security number to locate a current address. Through the advanced address
searches, Simpluris was able to locate 900 updated addresses and Simpluris promptly mailed
Notice Packets to those updated addresses. Ultimately, 188 Class Member’s Notices were
undeliverable because Simpluris was unable to locate a current address. (Salinas Dec. ¶9).
To reach the maximum number of class members and ensure that any potential class
member who may have moved had access to the case information, Simpluris established and is
maintaining a website dedicated to this case (www.valentinevcountyofla.com) . The Settlement
Agreement, Amendment to Settlement Agreement, Order Approving Amendment to Settlement
Agreement, Order Granting Preliminary Approval, and the Notice of Class Action Settlement are
all available for download from the website. The website was operational on November 4, 2019,
and is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (Salinas Dec. ¶10).
F. Response to the Proposed Settlement – No Objections
Class Members were given 45 days to opt out or object to the Settlement. Plaintiffs are
pleased to report that of the 23,591 Class Members, only 12 (0.05%) opted out and no Class
Member objected to the Settlement. (Salinas Dec. ¶¶11-12). All Class Members who did not opt
out will receive a payment in the amount of $196.85. (Salinas Dec. ¶¶113) Class Members will
have one year to cash their checks. There is no reversion of funds to Defendant. Any monies
from checks not cashed within 365 days of initial issuance shall be distributed, pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure Section 384. The Cy Pres funds will be provided to a non-profit organization,
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
30
31
32
12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
chosen by the County, that provides services that assist individuals who face barriers to
employment. The unclaimed residual funds shall be payable to New Horizons, 15725 Parthenia St.,
North Hills, California, 91343; http://newhorizons-sfv.org/. (Olivares Dec. ¶¶30-31).
G. Notice of Final Judgment
Notice of Final Judgment shall be given to the Class Members by posting notice on the
Settlement Administrator's website, or, pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.77(b), in any other
manner specified by the Court. (Settlement Agreement, Section II, M(9))
IV. ARGUMENT
A. Legal Standard for Granting Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement
Settlement of a class action requires court approval. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769. To
warrant final approval, a class settlement must be fair, adequate, and reasonable. Dunk v. Ford
Motor Co. 48, (1996) Cal.App.4th 1800, 1801 (citation omitted). The purpose of this requirement
is to “prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class.” Id. The court has broad discretion in
determining whether to approve a proposed settlement. Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., (2001)
91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245, affirming approval of nationwide class settlement); 7-Eleven Owners for
Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp., (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145-46 (affirming approval of
class settlement). The law generally favors settlement, particularly in class actions, where
substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigors of litigation. In re
Microsoft I-V Cases, (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 706, 723, fn. 14 (“Public policy generally favors the
compromise of complex class action litigation”); Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, (2009) 180
Cal.App.4th 1110, 1125 (denial of class settlement was “particularly problematic” in light of the
public policy favoring settlement of complex class actions.)
In evaluating the fairness of a class settlement, courts consider several relevant factors,
including “the strength of the plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of
further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in
settlement, and the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience
and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class
members to the proposed settlement.” Dunk, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1801. These factors are not