NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE Clause Samples

NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. In early August of 2016, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Senegal, an African American Advisor employed by Chase, retained Class Counsel to represent him with respect to his individual and potential classwide claims of race discrimination and related retaliation in employment. Plaintiff Senegal alleged that African American and Black Advisors had been and were being assigned to less lucrative branches and denied business opportunities, among other things, because of race and had experienced race discrimination and related retaliation in other terms and conditions of their employment. B. Class Counsel conducted an extensive investigation into the individual and classwide claims at issue. They conducted in-depth interviews of potential class members across the United States and reviewed and analyzed company documents and publicly-available information, including information about Chase, the financial services industry, and United States Census data reflecting the demographics of bank territories. C. As a result of its investigation, Class Counsel filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Senegal on February 3, 2017; Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on February 28, 2017; and Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on March 24, 2017. Plaintiffs ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ retained Class Counsel and agreed to serve as Class Representatives shortly thereafter, as Class Counsel’s investigation continued. Senegal, Williams, Griffin, Jason, Farrish, and ▇▇▇▇ are collectively referred to as Plaintiffs or Named Plaintiffs. D. In conjunction with this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs will file the Complaint in the Court to initiate a putative class action on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of African American and Black Advisors, against the Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). E. In an effort to determine whether the Parties could settle this dispute prior to a lengthy litigation, the Parties’ counsel, who are experienced class action attorneys, participated in detailed and exhaustive discussions and negotiations, beginning in May of 2017. The parties also executed an agreement tolling and extending the statute of limitations periods and deadlines related to the Plaintiffs’ claims as of April 21, 2017. F. After exchanging information among counsel about the claims, the Parties engaged the se...

NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. On December 6, 2012, certain plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). On December 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint, alleging violations of Section 1981, which is the operative complaint in this matter (the “Complaint”). Dkt. No. 514. B. The Settling Defendant denies all liability and wrongdoing associated with the claims alleged in the Complaint or any prior pleading filed by any plaintiff to this Action. Specifically, the Settling Defendant denies that it discriminated against the Plaintiff or other African Americans on the basis of race in violation of Title VII, Section 1981, or any other state or federal law. The Settling Defendant further denies all other allegations of wrongdoing in the Complaint or that had been raised against PSG in the Action. C. Counsel for the Parties are experienced class action attorneys. They have vigorously pursued their positions and the rights of their clients through extensive briefing, legal and factual analysis, as well as discovery. In light of the novel legal issues briefed to date and the potential risk and delay in the event this case proceeded to trial, the Parties elected to engage in settlement discussions during the time the Action has been pending. D. In late 2021, PSG advised Plaintiffs that, due to a series of major financial setbacks affecting its long-term viability, its primary secured lenders forced PSG to sell its assets and that an asset sale was consummated on or about July 30, 2021. PSG provided Plaintiffs with substantial documentation and other information concerning its financial situation. To assist with the negotiations, in early 2022 the parties re-engaged the ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇.), who had previously assisted with settlement negotiations, for mediation. During the negotiations, counsel for the Plaintiffs and PSG bargained vigorously on behalf of their respective clients. Among other considerations, the precarious financial condition of PSG, based on publicly available information and confidential financial information produced by PSG, and the risks and uncertainties of pursuing claims against potential successors and alter egos led the Plaintiffs to set...

NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. 2.1. On May 9, 2013, Class Representative ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ filed a Class Action Complaint against Merck in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging gender and pregnancy discrimination class claims. Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on January 16, 2014, inter alia, joining Class Representatives ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.1 On May 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class of female sales representatives under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”), the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 et seq. (“ERISA”), and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (the “Equal Pay Act” or the = 1 On November 4, 2014, Named Plaintiff ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ stipulated to the dismissal of her individual, collective, and class claims against Merck with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. “EPA”). On April 27, 2016, the Court conditionally certified a collective action regarding certain claims under the EPA. 2.2. In an effort to avoid further unnecessary litigation, cost, and expense, the Class Representatives and the Defendants (collectively, the “Parties”) entered mediation after more than five years of litigation. The Parties retained a well-known and experienced mediator, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, Esq., skilled in mediation of complex class actions, to assist them in their negotiations. Both Parties and their Counsel recognize that, in the absence of an approved Settlement, they will face a long litigation course, including motions for summary judgment and trial and appellate proceedings that would consume time and resources and present each of them with ongoing litigation risks and uncertainties. The Parties wish to avoid these risks and uncertainties, as well as the consumption of time and resources, through settlement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.2 After extensive discovery, analysis, and deliberation, the Parties are of the opinion that the Settlement described in this Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Class Counsel and the Class Representatives believe that the Settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement serves the best ...

NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. On December 5, 2012, certain plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). On December 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint, alleging violations of Section 1981, which is the operative complaint in this matter (the “Complaint”). ECF No. 514. B. Counsel for the Parties are experienced class action attorneys. They have vigorously pursued their positions and the rights of their clients through extensive briefing, legal and factual analysis, as well as discovery. In light of the novel legal issues briefed to date and the potential risk and delay in the event this case proceeded to trial, the Parties elected to engage in settlement discussions during the time the Action has been pending. C. After almost eleven years of litigation and multiple unsuccessful attempts to settle this matter, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification on February 21, 2023 and entered an order certifying the following three Subclasses: Staffing Network Subclass (represented by Plaintiffs Eagle and Keys) African American laborers who sought work assignments at Staffing Network from offices that referred workers to Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including December 31, 2015, but on one or more occasion were not assigned to work at Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including December 31, 2015.‌ ASI Subclass (represented by Plaintiff Franklin)‌ African American laborers who sought work assignments at Alternative Staffing, Inc. from offices that referred workers to Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including December 31, 2015, but on one or more occasion were not assigned to work at Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including December 31, 2015. MVP Subclass (represented by Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇)‌ African American laborers who sought work assignments at Personnel Staffing Group, LLC d/b/a MVP from offices that referred workers to Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including October 21, 2013, but on one or more occasion were not assigned to work at Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including O...

NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. On April 29, 2014, the Named Plaintiff, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, Ph.D., filed a Complaint in the Court on behalf of herself as an individual and on behalf of a class of nine B. Defendants deny the allegations in the Complaint. C. The parties engaged in class-wide discovery as to the number of employees who constitute the class, the Employer’s policies and practices with respect to the FMLA and leaves of absence, the Employer’s the handling of the Named Plaintiff’s FMLA-parental- leave- qualifying event, the Employer’s handling of other class members FMLA-parental- leave- qualifying events, employee additions of dependents to health insurance benefits available through the Employer, and the Employer’s training and compliance activities with D. Counsel for the parties have also conducted their own substantial investigations of the matter, including the facts underlying the claims and issues raised in the charges and the Complaint. The investigations included, among other things, interviewing Class Member witnesses, deposing three key Human Resources employees responsible for the Employer’s FMLA compliance, and reviewing a substantial number of relevant records. As a result of the exchange of discovery, the investigation, and other activity both prior to and after filing the Complaint, counsel for the parties are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions, and have had a full opportunity to assess the litigation risks presented in this case. All parties and their counsel recognize that, in the absence of an approved settlement, they would face a long litigation course, including motions for class certification, formal discovery and depositions, motions for summary judgment, and trial and potential appellate proceedings that would consume time and resources and present each of them with ongoing litigation risks and uncertainties. The parties wish to avoid these risks and

NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. On October 29, 2008, Named Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed her Class Action Complaint against Dell in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of female employees of Dell. Named Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ was subsequently added as a named plaintiff and class representative. Named Plaintiffs are represented by Class Counsel, who have represented many clients in employment disputes with Dell. As part of their investigation and prosecution of this Civil Action, Class Counsel interviewed current and former Dell female employees regarding then- experiences at Dell, particularly as it related to their compensation, promotion, business opportunities, and career advancement at Dell in comparison to then male counterparts. Class Counsel also reviewed numerous Dell documents relating to these issues. In an effort to avoid unnecessary litigation, cost and expense, the Parties entered pre-litigation mediation. Dell provided Class Counsel with substantial employment data and information in furtherance of the mediation and the Parties retained a well-known and experienced mediator, skilled in mediation of complex class actions, including national employment discrimination class actions, to assist the Parties in their negotiations. Over the course of several months and multiple mediation sessions, the Parties discussed extensive analyses of the employment data and potential equitable forms of relief to be part of a settlement. Each party retained an expert labor economist to analyze the available employment data and to assist the Parties in negotiating a fair and reasonable settlement. Both Parties and their counsel recognize that, in the absence of an approved settlement, they would face a long litigation course, including motions to dismiss, motions for class certification, formal discovery, motions for summary judgment, and trial and appellate proceedings that would consume time and resources and present each of them with ongoing litigation risks and uncertainties. The Parties wish to avoid these risks and uncertainties, as well as the consumption of time and resources, through settlement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, After careful review and consideration, the Class Representatives and Class Counsel are of the opinion between them and between the Released Parties and the Settlement Class. It is the intention of the Parties that this Settlement Agreement shall constitute a full and complete settlement and release...

NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois County Department, (“Complaint”), alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. B. On February 24, 2021, discovery in this case was stayed pending the McDonald v.

NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE