Haro v. Walmart Inc., 1:21-cv-00239

Plaintiffs, hourly Walmart employees in California, filed a class action alleging uncompensated work time required for COVID-19 screenings before shifts.
Walmart had a policy of compensating five extra minutes per shift for such screenings, which plaintiffs argued did not cover actual time spent.
The parties negotiated a proposed class action settlement, comprised of a $5.2 million gross settlement fund, including allocations for attorney fees, service awards, and a PAGA penalty.
The proposed class included over 200,000 current and former hourly Walmart employees who worked during the relevant period.
Notice of settlement was mailed and emailed to all potential class members, with few opting out (19/200,000+) and no objections.
The district court was asked to approve the final settlement, attorney’s fees, service awards, costs, settlement administration, and class certification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether COVID-19 screening wait time is compensable	Analogous to exit search case; all time under employer control is compensable	Already paid five minutes; wait time minimal; policy covers all	Court finds settlement reasonable in light of dispute
Adequacy and fairness of class action settlement	Settlement reflects ~98% of claimed unpaid wages; fair and reasonable	N/A (unopposed)	Approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable
Reasonableness of attorney’s fee award (33.33%)	Fee justified due to significant recovery, contingency risk, complexity	N/A (unopposed)	Approved; matches circuit range and lodestar supports
Appropriateness of service awards of $10,000 each	High effort and risk taken by named plaintiffs; in line with local precedents	N/A (unopposed)	Approved as fair given class size and involvement

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (standards for class action settlement approval)
Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (factors for evaluating class action settlements)
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of S.F., 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (district court discretion in fairness of class settlements)
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (attorney’s fee calculation methods in class actions)
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (signs of collusion in class action settlements)
Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) (court’s obligation to scrutinize class settlements for fairness)
Stanger v. China Elec. Motor, Inc., 812 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2016) (premium for contingency fee counsel in complex litigation)