Gallimore v. United States, 11-715

Class certified Oct. 31, 2016: part‑time Field Representatives and Senior Field Representatives at the Census Bureau (from Oct. 28, 2005 to present) who performed non‑overtime work on Sundays and did not receive Sunday premium pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5546(a).
Amended complaint filed July 2, 2019; class contains 3,487 opt‑in members; fairness hearing held May 18, 2021.
Parties negotiated an arms‑length settlement: the United States agreed to pay $12,613,936.96 (minus lawful offsets) into a Settlement Trust, allocated among back pay and interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, administrator fees, employer payroll taxes, and estimated tax withholdings.
Distribution plan: class administrator to withhold and remit federal/state/local taxes and employer OASDI/Medicare, pay $6,221,518.93 net to class members (after fees and estimated taxes), retain $32,156 as administrator fee, and pay $3,684,287.90 to Class Counsel (including a 30% fee of monies reaching class members).
One class member objected (disputing pay grade retroactivity and expressing misunderstandings about fee/administrator payments); parties filed corrected settlement addenda to ensure accurate tax treatment.
Court found notice adequate, negotiations arm’s‑length, settlement provided ~88.5% of back pay plus 100% interest, and approved the settlement on June 29, 2021.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under RCFC 23(e)	Settlement is a reasonable compromise given litigation risk, provides large recovery and prospective policy change, and was negotiated at arm’s‑length	Government consented to settlement and supported approval	Approved: court found settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under RCFC 23(e)
Adequacy of class representation and arm’s‑length negotiation	Class representatives and counsel adequately represented the class; substantial counsel effort and participation support adequacy	No objection; Government consented	Approved: court found representation adequate and negotiations arm’s‑length
Reasonableness of attorneys’ fees (30% of monies to class members)	30% justified by high participation rate, complexity, time spent, and risk; no class objections to fee	Government did not object to fee request	Approved: court found fee percentage reasonable and supported by record
Equitable treatment and distribution (including tax withholding/administrator fees)	Distribution based on individual payroll records; equal percentage fee allocation; taxes and employer contributions handled by administrator	Government agreed to pay settlement amounts and reimbursements; no objection to allocation	Approved: court found the plan distributes equitably, with administrator to withhold/remit taxes and employer payroll taxes handled as agreed

Adams v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 74 (2012) (court may not alter proposed settlement or decide merits when approving class settlement)
Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986) (standards for judicial approval of class settlements and limits on court action)
Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 791 (2002) (discussion of standards for judicial review of class settlements)