Cole v. Lane Bryant, Inc.
5:22-cv-06714
| N.D. Cal. | Feb 10, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Shania Cole was employed as a stylist by Lane Bryant from June 2021 to June 2022, working part-time in customer service and store maintenance.
- Cole filed a lawsuit alleging violations of California labor law, including failure to pay wages, rest and meal break violations, and improper wage statements.
- The parties reached a proposed class action and PAGA settlement after discovery and mediation, seeking court approval.
- The settlement proposed payments to class members, the representative, attorneys, the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), and administration costs, with Lane Bryant contributing $1,150,000 in total.
- The proposed class includes all non-exempt, hourly Lane Bryant employees in California from January 1, 2021 to January 25, 2024.
- The court denied preliminary approval due to concerns about the calculation and adequacy of the PAGA settlement, specifically regarding the potential statutory penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of PAGA penalty calculation | Lane Bryant's PAGA exposure is $3.5 million, so $60k is fair | Disputes liability but relies on same penalty calculation | Plaintiff's calculation omits statutory penalties; not fair |
| Applicability of $200 penalty for 'subsequent' violations | Only $100 per period applies due to good faith dispute | No specific good faith dispute asserted | $200 penalty should apply; higher exposure |
| Approval of settlement with low PAGA recovery | Settlement is fair and no LWDA objection | No explicit position, disputes violations occurred | Recovery under 1% of claim value is concerning |
| Sufficiency of information for court approval | Provided adequate information for approval | Relies on plaintiff’s submission | More info needed; cannot approve settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015) (explains PAGA's penalty structure and its employee proxy mechanism)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (Cal. 2009) (PAGA plaintiffs act as proxies for state labor agencies)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (settlement must be accepted or rejected as a whole)