Prince v. Aramark Corporation, 257 F. Supp. 3d 20

Plaintiffs are housekeeping employees at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center who sued their employers under the FLSA and various D.C. wage laws for unpaid minimum/living wages and overtime. 68 individuals consented to join the FLSA collective; the settlement class ultimately included 169 persons for settlement purposes.
After informal discovery and negotiations, parties reached a settlement; the court granted preliminary approval and ordered notice to the class. Four class members initially missed notice but were later contacted; none timely objected.
Settlement terms: defendants will raise workplace wages to at least the Living Wage Act level prospectively and pay up to $466,250 total (including $373,250 to class members, $4,000 to named plaintiffs, and $89,000 for attorneys’ fees/costs). Class members release wage-and-hour claims accruing through Nov. 16, 2016.
Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims with prejudice; defendants deny liability. Class counsel represented the class and negotiated the agreement after the exchange of payroll data and damages estimates.
No class member filed an objection to the settlement at the fairness hearing or thereafter. The court conducted the Rule 23(e) review and considered standard fairness factors before granting final approval.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to finally certify the settlement class under Rule 23	Class meets numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy; certification appropriate for settlement	Agreed to certification for settlement	Court granted final certification for settlement purposes
Whether the proposed class settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and non-collusive	Settlement provides greater-than-estimated damages recovery, immediate wage improvements, and avoids litigation risk and delay	Denies liability; supports settlement to avoid further expense and uncertainty	Court approved settlement as fair, adequate, reasonable, and not a product of collusion
Adequacy of relief vs. litigation risks (damages and prospective relief)	Settlement pays $373,250 to class (plaintiffs’ estimate $343k–$349k) plus prospective wage increase; named plaintiffs paid $1,000 each	Litigation could reduce recovery, contest class certification, or shorten class period; risks and costs justify settlement	Court found settlement within reasonable range given uncertainty and benefits to class
Attorneys’ fees and costs (reasonableness of $89,000 award)	Counsel incurred substantially more in lodestar; $89,000 (~19% of total) is reasonable and was agreed in settlement	Agreed as part of settlement	Court approved $89,000 as reasonable and to be paid to class counsel

Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (court must ensure class settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and not collusive)
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 305 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C. 2004) (judicial preference for class settlement and factors for evaluating fairness)
Trombley v. Nat’l City Bank, 826 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2011) (factors for reviewing class settlement fairness)
Taylor v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 241 F.R.D. 33 (D.D.C. 2007) (numerosity standard guidance)
Richardson v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2013) (reasonableness of modest incentive payments for lead plaintiffs)
Alvarez v. Keystone Plus Constr. Corp., 303 F.R.D. 152 (D.D.C. 2014) (consideration of uncertainty in recovering liquidated damages and litigation risks)