Eisenacher v. VITAS HOSPICE SERVICES, LLC, 3:20-cv-04948

Background

Plaintiff Kristina Eisenacher sued VITAS Hospice Services alleging it forced sales reps to make in-person visits during COVID shelter-in-place orders and retaliated when she complained.
The parties reached a PAGA settlement with a gross amount of $236,993.27: $20,000 in PAGA penalties, $177,964.14 net to Plaintiff, and $39,029.13 for attorneys’ fees and costs (including distribution costs).
The settlement includes ten non-monetary COVID-19 safety measures (PPE, office and in-person sales safety protocols, testing, reporting, contact tracing, facility-policy compliance, two weeks additional PTO for employees with COVID-19, reasonable WFH accommodations for disability/medical issues, and virtual contacts counting toward quotas while public health orders remain).
Monetary distribution: 75% of the PAGA penalties to the State of California, 25% to aggrieved employees (defined as current/former California sales reps employed between March 12, 2020 and January 31, 2021); proposed even split yields ~112 employees and about $44.64 each.
Releases: aggrieved employees release PAGA civil penalties but keep underlying individual claims and retain the right to bring private suits; Plaintiff releases all claims and agrees not to participate in other class/collective/enforcement actions.
Procedural/decision posture: Court evaluated the settlement under PAGA statutory notice requirements and the Hanlon factors (fairness/reasonableness/adequacy) in view of PAGA’s public-policy goals, noted LWDA and Cal/OSHA were notified but did not intervene, and approved the settlement as fair and adequate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PAGA settlement satisfies statutory/notice requirements and may be approved	Eisenacher contends the parties complied with PAGA notice and LWDA submission rules and the settlement is lawful	VITAS argues settlement resolves PAGA exposure and the parties met notice/filing obligations	Court found statutory requirements satisfied and LWDA was notified; approved settlement
Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Hanlon factors and PAGA public-policy goals	Eisenacher argues risks of litigation, individualized proofs, and need for speedy policy changes make settlement reasonable; non-monetary relief provides public benefit	VITAS contends settlement avoids expensive complex litigation and implements safety protocols benefitting employees/facilities	Court applied Hanlon factors, found litigation risks and public benefit support approval; settlement approved
Allocation of penalties (75% to state / 25% to aggrieved employees; small per-employee amounts)	Eisenacher supports even distribution among aggrieved employees and the 75/25 split consistent with PAGA purpose	VITAS accepts the split and distribution method as reasonable compromise	Court approved the allocation and per-employee distribution as within a reasonable range
Scope of releases (aggrieved employees release PAGA penalties; Plaintiff releases all claims and waives participation in other collective actions)	Eisenacher agreed to a broad personal release and agreed aggrieved employees release PAGA penalties while retaining underlying claim rights	VITAS required releases to bring finality to PAGA penalties and settlement	Court approved release scope, noting aggrieved employees retain rights to bring private suits and settlement does not bar underlying individual claims

Key Cases Cited

Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) (PAGA plaintiff sues as the state’s proxy; judgment binds government and nonparty aggrieved employees)
Iskanian v. CLS Transp. L.A., LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014) (statutory and procedural limits on waiving representative PAGA claims)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard factors for evaluating fairness of class/representative settlements)
Flores v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 253 F.3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (discussing lack of definitive PAGA settlement-review standard and use of Hanlon factors)
O'Connor v. Uber Techs. Inc., 201 F.3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (discussing PAGA’s public-policy goals and deterrent function of penalties)