Professional Firefighters Ass'n of Omaha, Local 385 v. Zalewski, 678 F.3d 640

The district court certified a large class of active and retired city employees and their families and appointed class counsel to represent both groups.
Retiree intervenors and retirees negotiated protections focused on safeguarding retirees’ interests during settlement.
A tentative class-wide settlement was reached after mediation and extensive negotiations, with protections including retiree representation in bargaining and arbitration safeguards.
Notice was mailed to 10,286 class members; 17 opted out and 4% objected, including appellant Zalewski.
The district court approved the settlement after a fairness hearing, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate despite some intra-class tensions.
Appellant appeals the class certification and the district court’s approval of the settlement, challenging conflicts of interest and adequacy of protections for retirees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 23(a)(4) was satisfied despite one firm representing active and retired members.	Zalewski argues conflicts require independent retiree counsel.	City argues no abuse; safeguards and subclassing mitigated conflicts.	No abuse; separate counsel not required here.
Whether the settlement approval under Rule 23(e) was fair, reasonable, and adequate.	Zalewski contends conflicts undermined retirees’ protections and thus fairness.	City asserts strong protections, comprehensive negotiations, and substantial concessions benefited retirees.	Settlement approved; not an abuse of discretion.
Whether a special Rule 23(d) hearing on counsel representation was required and failed.	Zalewski asserts the court should have held a special hearing.	City contends no requirement for such a hearing and no waiver occurred.	Waived; no reversible error.

Rattray v. Woodbury Cnty., Ia., 614 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for class-certification review)
Reynolds v. Nat’l Football League, 584 F.2d 280 (8th Cir. 1978) (approval of a class settlement standard of review)
Anderson v. Alpha Portland Indus., 752 F.2d 1293 (8th Cir. 1985) (conflicts between groups and need for separate subclass representation)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (structural assurances of fair representation in complex class actions)
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (U.S. 1999) (limits on the need for separate counsel; context-specific)
Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) (distinguishes circumstances where Ortiz/Amchem apply)
DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co., 64 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1995) (principles for evaluating class settlements)