|
|||||
Home| Postal News| Your Rights | Commentary | Employee Resources |Links |About | Letters to Editor| PostalMall
|
|||||
SUMMARY of COMPLAINANTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
On March 9, 2002, class counsel filed a motion requesting that the Commission add Edmond Walker as a co-class agent in the Glover/Albrecht class action. Mr. Walker sought to add new issues to the class action. One of those issues included restricting permanent rehabilitation employee’s work hours, including overtime. During a telephonic conference regarding adding Mr. Walker as a co-class agent, the Administrative Judge noted to the parties that if Mr. Walker was added as a class agent, the entire class would have to be re-noticed. Class counsel withdrew, without prejudice, his request to add Mr. Walker as a co-class agent. However, class counsel and Mr. Walker did not abandon this issue. On July 19, 2002 Mr. Walker filed a formal class complaint. Mr. Walker’s class complaint alleges that rehabilitation employees’ works hours are restricted in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. Mr. Walker’s allegations include the issue of denial of overtime to rehabilitation employee. On December 8, 2003, class counsel filed Complainant Walker’s Motion Requesting Class Certification. Mr. Walker ’s request for class certification is presently pending a ruling by the Commission. Other Claims and Issues. "With respect to the overtime issue, class counsel did attempt to add this issue to the lawsuit because it was raised by numerous class members in correspondence to class counsel. On March 9, 2002, class counsel filed a motion requesting that the Commission add Edmond Walker as a co-class agent in this case. Mr. Walker’s issues included restricting permanent rehabilitation employees’ work hours; including overtime. In considering this issue, the Administrative Judge noted to the parties that if Mr. Walker and his issues were added to the lawsuit the entire class would have to be renoticed. In light of the possible delay and the additional complexity of adding this issue, class counsel withdrew his request to add Mr. Walker as a co-class agent who raised the overtime issue. Class counsel did not abandon this issue. Instead, Mr. Walker filed a separate class complaint which includes the overtime issue. Mr. Walker’s request for class certification is presently pending a ruling by the Commission." On December 3, 2003, Judge Montemayor issued his Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Ordered the parties to transmit the Notice of Resolution of Class Action to class members. Transmission of the Class Notice
On January 29, 2004, USPS
transmitted to class counsel
a CD ROM containing
the names of
26,167
individuals on the master
list.
On February 4, 2004, USPS
confirmed to class counsel
that the Claim
Administrator had mailed the
Notice of Resolution
of Class Action to 26,176
potential class members.
On February 3, 2004, the parties
set up a system to
identify additional potential
class members to be added to
the master list. Class
counsel has forwarded a number
of additions to the list under
this process.
In February 2003, the parties
reached an Agreement in
Principle. However,
negotiations continued until
November 2003, in order to
refine and clarify the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.
On November 20, 2003, the
parties submitted the
Settlement Agreement and
exhibits thereto to
Administrative Judge
Montemayor for preliminary
approval.
On February 3, 2004, the
Notice of Resolution of Class
Action was mailed to 26,176
class members. The Notice
of Resolution was also posted
on the Agency’s bulletin
boards at over 14,000
facilities.38 The Settlement
Agreement required that notice
be posted on class counsel’s
website.9 The parties also
agreed to a process to
continue to identify
additional class members and
added individuals to the class
list.
Pursuant to Commission
regulation 29 C.F.R.
1614.204(g)(4), class members
were given thirty (30) days to
submit any objections to the
terms of the proposed
Settlement Agreement. At the
end of the objection period,
the Administrative Judge and
parties approved seventy-nine
(79) individuals as Objectors. The Administrative Judge issued an Order April 26, 2004, approving seventy-nine (79) individuals as objectors to the settlement agreement. This number represents less than [.3] percent of the class members eligible to file objections. Stated otherwise, 99.7 percent of the class did not object to the settlement agreement. Most of the 79 individuals who objected to the Settlement Agreement, provide no factual or legal basis to support their objections. To the contrary, an inference that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be granted final approval may be drawn by the absence of objections by the vast majority of class members.
4th day of May 2004, I served a copy by placing same postage prepaid in the U.S. mail addressed to: |