958 F. Supp. 2d 116
D.D.C.2013Background
- This Rehabilitation Act class action alleges USPS failed to provide reasonable accommodations to deaf and hearing-impaired employees.
- EEOC proceedings began in 1998 with Hubbard alleging denial of accommodation (sign language interpreter) at Brentwood facility.
- Plaintiffs filed the class action on May 14, 2003, with multiple amended complaints alleging §501 violations.
- Settlement discussions occurred in 2009 and 2010, including mediation with a $150,000 flat fee split between DOJ and Covington; terms were incorporated into the proposed Agreement.
- In Oct. 2012 the Court preliminarily approved the settlement, issued notices to >6,000 potential class members, and set a fairness hearing; final approval and fee awards were granted after hearings in 2013.
- The Court approved a $4.55 million Global Settlement, awarding $910,000 in attorneys’ fees and $114,216.69 in expenses, with $3,525,783.31 for class distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certification of settlement classes under Rule 23. | Hubbard. | USPS opposes; supports class definitions. | The Damages 23(b)(3) and Injunctive 23(b)(2) classes are certified. |
| Reasonableness of the settlement fund and distribution. | Settlement fair and aims to rectify discrimination. | Settlement should reflect risks and costs; adequate for class. | Settlement approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; funds allocated as described. |
| Attorneys’ fees and expenses allocation. | Fees reasonable given common fund; percentage method appropriate. | Fees should reflect efficiency and avoid excessive billing. | 20% of the constructive common fund ($4.55M) awarded as fees; expenses approved with limited adjustments. |
| Injunctive relief and monetary relief adequacy. | Relief necessary to ensure ongoing accommodations. | Relief should remedy past discrimination within practical limits. | Injunctive and monetary relief found fair, reasonable, and adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 205 F.R.D. 369 (D.D.C. 2002) (class certification and fee considerations in multidistrict litigation)
- Lorazepam III, 2003 WL 22037741 (D.D.C. 2003) (framework for fee analysis in class actions (Lorazepam factors))
- Bynum v. District of Columbia, 214 F.R.D. 27 (D.D.C. 2003) (class action settlement fairness and attorney fee considerations)
- Weinberger v. Great N. Nekoosa Corp., 925 F.2d 518 (1st Cir. 1991) (court’s guardianship role in determining reasonable fees in settlements)
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (structural considerations for comprehensive settlement approval)
- Radosti v. Envision EMI, L.L.C., 760 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2011) (constructive common fund and fee award jurisprudence)